Safety and Health at Work 10 (2019) 482e503 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Safety and Health at Work journal homepage: www.e-shaw.net Original Article The Third Version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire Hermann Burr 1, *, Hanne Berthelsen 2, Salvador Moncada 3, Matthias Nübling 4, Emilie Dupret 5, Yucel Demiral 6, John Oudyk 7, Tage S. Kristensen 8, Clara Llorens 3, 9, Albert Navarro 9,10, Hans-Joachim Lincke 4, Christine Bocéréan 5,11, Ceyda Sahan 6, Peter Smith 12,13,14, Anne Pohrt 15, on behalf of the international COPSOQ Network 1 Division 3 Work and Health, Federal Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Berlin, Germany 2 Center for Work Life and Evaluation Studies (CTA) and the Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden 3 Union Institute of Work, Environment and Health (ISTAS), Barcelona, Spain 4 Freiburg Research Centre for Occupational Sciences (FFAW), Freiburg, Germany 5 Preventis, Paris, France 6 Department of Public Health, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey 7 Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers (OHCOW), Hamilton, Canada 8 Task-Consult, Gilleleje, Denmark 9 Research Group on Psychosocial Risks, Organization of Work and Health (POWAH), Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain 10 Biostatistics Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain 11 Lorraine University, Nancy, France 12 Institute for Work and Health (IWH), Toronto, ON, Canada 13 Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia 14 Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada 15 Institut für Medizinische Psychologie, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Introduction: A new third version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ III) has been Received 25 July 2018 developed in response to trends in working life, theoretical concepts, and international experience. A key Received in revised form component of the COPSOQ III is a defined set of mandatory core items to be included in national short, 20 September 2019 middle, and long versions of the questionnaire. The aim of the present article is to present and test the Accepted 23 October 2019 Available online 6 November 2019 reliability of the new international middle version of the COPSOQ III. Methods: The questionnaire was tested among 23,361 employees during 2016e2017 in Canada, Spain, France, Germany, Sweden, and Turkey. A total of 26 dimensions (measured through scales or single Keywords: Psychosocial risk factors items) of the middle version and two from the long version were tested. Psychometric properties of the Psychosocial working conditions dimensions were assessed regarding reliability (Cronbach a), ceiling and floor effects (fractions with Risk assessment extreme answers), and distinctiveness (correlations with other dimensions). Results: Most international middle dimensions had satisfactory reliability in most countries, though some ceiling and floor effects were present. Dimensions with missing values were rare. Most dimensions had low to medium intercorrelations. Conclusions: The COPSOQ III offers reliable and distinct measures of a wide range of psychosocial di- mensions of modern working life in different countries; although a few measures could be improved. Future testing should focus on validation of the COPSOQ items and dimensions using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Such investigations would enhance the basis for recommendations using the COPSOQ III. Ó 2019 Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Published by Elsevier Korea LLC. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). * Corresponding author. Unit 3.4. Mental Health and Cognitive Capacity, Division 3 Work and Health, Federal Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Nöldnerstraße 40-42, 10317, Berlin, Germany. E-mail address: burr.hermann@baua.bund.de (H. Burr). 2093-7911/$ e see front matter Ó 2019 Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Published by Elsevier Korea LLC. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC- ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2019.10.002 H. Burr et al / COPSOQ III 483 1. Introduction work life [53]. This implicates new ways of interacting not only with coworkers but also with customers, patients, clients, or The objective of this article is to present and test the reliability of pupils (e.g., in telemedicine, robotics. and by means of the third international middle version of the Copenhagen Psycho- communication technologies like email and social media) [54e social Questionnaire (COPSOQ III). This third version has been 56]. developed by the International COPSOQ Network reflecting its' 2) Concepts: First, the Job demands-resources model (JD-R) increased international use [1]eethe previous two versions were through integration of classical work environmental models developed by the Danish National Research Centre of the Working and job satisfaction research pointed at the need for a more Environment [2,3]. comprehensive perspective than previous occupational health models [57,58]. This applies not merely to job demands and 1.1. What is the COPSOQ? resources but also to a broader range of nontraditional health- related outcomes such as productivity and staff turnover. A The COPSOQ was originally developed for use in two settings: wider focus regarding outcomes can facilitate integration of the (1) occupational risk assessment and (2) research on work and perspective of occupational health and perspectives such as health [2e4]. The COPSOQ instrument covers a broad range of human resource management. In addition, there is an domains including Demands at Work, Work Organization and Job increasing awareness regarding trust, justice, reciprocity, and Contents, Interpersonal Relations and Leadership, Worke cohesion at the workplace pointing at the notion of social Individual Interface, Social Capital, Offensive Behaviors, Health capital [13,59e61]. Another development is that new theories and Well-being. Previous versions of the COPSOQ were developed about stress in the workplace have evolved, such as the Stress- through factor analyses of a large range of items, and reliability of as-Offence-to-Self theory (SOS) [62]. This theory posits that resulting scales was subsequently tested. how employees conceive they are treated by the management, In the workplace setting, practitioners have an interest in through what tasks they are meant to do, and the circum- measuring a broad range of psychosocial factors, both at the stances under which they are to carry out tasks can be a source workplace level and for national monitoring [5,6]. In the research of stress [62]. In particular, when tasks and circumstances are setting, it is likewise of interest to have broad coverage of psy- laid out in a way that hinders the workers carrying out their chosocial dimensions. This broad coverage also includes central work, this can be experienced as maltreatment and result in elements of concepts widely used in research of work and health greater stress. such as the demand control and the effortereward imbalance (ERI) models [7e11], as well as other psychosocial factors such as While these three topics (JD-R, social capital, and SOS) were emotional demands and quality of leadership [6,11e15]. already partly covered by earlier versions of the COPSOQ, the The COPSOQ I and II came in short, middle, and long versions [3]. evolution of these theories in the last two decades necessitated Originally, the short and medium versions were intended to be greater coverage of these theories in the updated COPSOQ III. used in practical settings and the long version in research settings. Later, it turned out that also in research there was a need for shorter 3) International experience with the COPSOQ: The questionnaire versions and that the middle version had sufficient reliability [3]. is being used in an increasing number of countries [1], which The COPSOQ has been recognized as a useful instrument by several are very different regarding work and working conditions organizations [16,17]. [40,63e65]. This development has led, on the one hand, to an Previous to the development of the COPSOQ III, the instrument increased need for adaptations to different national, cultural, had been translated into 18 different languages and was used in 40 and occupational contexts, and on the other hand, to sugges- countries worldwide [3,18e28,30e36]. The COPSOQ is also widely tions for revision of existing items. For example, the interna- used in research, being applied in more than 400 peer-reviewed tional use of the COPSOQ has raised issues regarding wording articles [37]. Finally, the COPSOQ has been applied to a variety of of items (i.e. do items measure what they should), translation occupations and workplaces and has proven to be valid for national, issues (e.g., between the Danish and English versions of the as well as international comparisons [38e42]. COPSOQ I and II) and differential item functioning (DIF) and differential item effects (DIEs). These experiences have also led 1.2. Reasons for development of the COPSOQ III to more knowledge on what dimensions are regarded as important on the shop floor level and what dimensions are The push to redevelop the COPSOQ II to a third version (COPSOQ most strongly associated with health. III) was based on three reasons: 1) Trends in the work environment: Work and working conditions 1.3. The development process have changed because of increased globalization and comput- erization to some extent intensified by the economic crisis in In dealing with the aforementioned three reasons for further 2008. For example, types of management characterized by less developing the questionnaire (societal trends, scientific concepts, trust (e.g., New Public Management; appraisal systems) have and experience with the questionnaire), two strategic objectives become more prevalent [43], along with the deterioration of were important. These were to update the instrument and, at the working conditions in some [44,45], but not all countries same time, allow comparability between populations and time [46,47]. Furthermore, income inequality has increased [48,49], periods. A test version was developed in a conceptual-guided and precarious work (e.g., involuntary part time work and short consensus process to evaluate all items of versions I and II of the term contracts) has become more widespread [40,50,51], along questionnaire according to their relevance for research and practice with flexible timetables (e.g., weekend work, shift work), long (Appendix Table 1). International Network members from Asia, the working hours and lack of schedule adaptation. In addition, Americas and Europe were invited to assess items and dimensions company restructurings and layoffs have led to less stable of these versions. They were encouraged to comment and suggest employment [43,49,51,52]. In recent decades technological changes on the network's regular biennial workshop meetings change has been characterized by increased digitalization of 2013-2017 in Ghent, Paris, and Santiago de Chile and in three online 484 Saf Health Work 2019;10:482e503 rounds of evaluations 2013-2016. In addition, psychometrics find- dimensions complement the existing dimensions Meaning of ings from research [36,66], results of Swedish cognitive interviews Work, Job Satisfaction, and Commitment to the Workplace. [20,61], reanalyzes of the existing COPSOQ I and II data by network Furthermore, to better cover aspects often related to social members, and practical experiences were considered. Based on this capital [13,59,60], core items were defined for the scales on Sense of process, a test version was finalized in spring 2016 and made Community at Work and Social Support from Colleagues. This available for further testing among network members. means that these dimensions are to be part of all national versions of the COPSOQ. In addition, the international middle version now includes Horizontal Trust, which before belonged to the long 1.4. What is new? version (Table 1). Finally, inspired by the SOS theory, we have now introduced the A number of changes were made in the third revised version of dimension Illegitimate Tasks [62]. the COPSOQ (Table 1). These changes cover both the dimensions and the items of the questionnaire (Table 1). In addition, each 1.4.4. Experience dimension was defined in a few sentences to give reasons for the The dimension Demands for Hiding Emotions was reintroduced choice of items and improve the use of the questionnaire in general from the COPSOQ I based on discussions with network members. (Appendix Table 2). We have also further developed international This dimension also correlated well with Health and Well-being guidelines regarding the use of the COPSOQ in practical settings [36,68]. The dimension Social Inclusiveness was abandoned [67]. because of concerns about validity. Several dimensions and items were also modified. Two items 1.4.1. The core item concept had translation issues between earlier Danish and English versions The concept of core items was introduced to ensure flexibility, of the COPSOQ (Emotional Demands and Influence at Work); two and continuity, simultaneously. This concept guarantees compa- items did not address the group level as intended (Quality of rability internationally, nationally, and over time. Core items were Leadership and Vertical Trust); four items were modified because of defined as mandatory in all national versions of the COPSOQ III, but invalid wordings of questions not taking the need for support into they cannot stand alone. In other words, core items are to be sup- account (Social Support from Supervisor and Colleagues, respec- plemented by further items to establish short, middle, or long tively); two other items were rephrased to increase clarity versions of the instrument (Fig. 1). In national versions, choice of (Commitment to the Workplace and Social Support from supplementary items can deviate. Middle and short versions are Supervisor). developed as a basis for use in measurements in companies; long One item on satisfaction with salary was added to cover an and middle versions are developed as a basis for use in research. aspect of the ERI model which was not included in the earlier National middle versions should consist of enough items to form COPSOQ versions (Job Satisfaction) [70]. Two items from the COP- reliable scales, thus consisting of two to four items (in the COPSOQ SOQ I were reintroduced as they better distinguished between III, some middle dimensions only comprise one item, which is an those with low influence (Influence) (unpublished analyses); five issue we return to in the discussion). Short versions should consist items were introduced originating from national versions of the of preferably two items. As a starting point, we have defined items COPSOQ (Work Life Conflict, Bullying, Self-Rated Health); one of for an international middle version of the COPSOQ III; as said, na- these items replaced an existing item (Work Life Conflict). Three tional versions can deviate. We did not suggest short version items, items were dropped because of concerns regarding content validity but national versions should consider middle items to supplement (Emotional Demands, Possibilities for Development, and Stress); in mandatory core items. This implicates a new standard for flexibility the two latter cases, DIE [66] and DIF (unpublished analyses) were for establishing national versions of the COPSOQ. observed. Three dimensions were relabeled. Now these dimensions are 1.4.2. Trends labeled as Vertical Trust, Horizontal Trust, and Organizational Jus- To keep the COPSOQ updated to new trends, we changed the tice; in the COPSOQ II, the corresponding labels were Trust questionnaire dealing with the issues precariousness, work life regarding Management and Mutual Trust between Employees and conflict, and negative acts. Regarding precariousness, we intro- Justice. duced the new dimension Insecurity over Working Conditions [21], thus letting the scale Job Insecurity focus only on insecurity con- 2. Materials and methods cerning employment. As previously mentioned, we reintroduced a dimension from the COPSOQ I, Control over Working Time, to cover 2.1. Population aspects of work life conflict better. This dimension also correlated well with Health and Well-being [36,68]. We expanded and rela- The questionnaire was tested in six countries in 2016 and 2017e beled the Work Life Conflict dimension (before called WorkeFamily ein Canada, both French and English language versions were tested Conflict), and we modified and included new items for this scale. To (Table 3). A total of 23,361 employees took part in the test. Some cover aspects related to work life conflict better, we reintroduced a populations were national random samples (Canada, Spain, and dimension from the COPSOQ I, then called Degrees of Freedom, France); some were company based (Germany, Sweden, and now relabeled Control over Working Time. In addition, as negative Turkey). In Germany, the company populations were heteroge- acts also take place in the internet, we introduced the dimension neous across industries, the Swedish population was from private Cyber Bullying [20]. and public companies with an overweight of human service workers, and the Turkish population consisted of employees within 1.4.3. Concepts the service sector and manufacturing. The Swedish and Canadian To be better able to integrate the field of occupational health samples were dominated by occupations with high socioeconomic with the field of management and organization addressed in the position, while the French and the German samples had an average JD-R model [57,58] and in line with the rationale of positive occu- occupational composition. In contrast, the occupational composi- pational psychology, we added the dimensions Work Engagement tion of the Turkish and especially the Spanish sample was skewed [69] and Quality of Work to the questionnaire (Table 1). These toward low socioeconomic positions. Table 1 Changes of the COPSOQ III as compared with the COPSOQ II Domain Dimension Change Reason* Demands at Work Emotional Demands Item emotionally involved (ED4) was given up as it could be seen as describing commitment. In the same scale the Experience item Deal with other people's problems (EDX2) replaced a previous item (ED2) as the new wording with better reflected the original Danish item. Demands for Hiding Emotions Dimension from the COPSOQ I was reintroduced. It was an important issue in shop floor measurements in, e.g., Experience. Belgium and Germany [36,68]. Work Organization and Job Contents Influence at Work The item influence decisions concerning work (INX1) has replaced a previous item (IN1) as the new wording better Experience reflected the original Danish item. In the same scale, two COPSOQ I items how quickly and how you do work (IN5 and IN6) were reintroduced as they better distinguish between those with low influence (unpublished analyses). Possibilities for Development The item take initiative (PD1) was given up as it performed poorly in the scale [66]; In addition, differential item Experience effects (DIE) were found in analyses predicting self-rated health (unpublished analyses). Control over Working Time Dimension from COPSOQ I was reintroduced to better assess aspects of work life conflict and was relabeled. Trends Formerly labeled Degrees of freedom. Control over Working Time was an important issue in shop floor measurements in. e.g., Belgium and Germany and also found to be associated to well-being and health [36,68]. Interpersonal Relations and Leadership Recognition Dimension was relabeled from Rewards to better reflect the content of the items included. Items not strictly Experience measuring this relabeled dimension were dropped: salary (RE4) and prospects (RE5). The first item is partly covered by a new Job Satisfaction item on salary (JS5), the latter partly by a Job Satisfaction item on prospects (JS1). Role Conflicts Items not strictly measuring this dimension were dropped: mixed acceptance (CO1) and unnecessary tasks Experience (CO4).The last of these items was transferred into a new dimension ‘illegitimate tasks’ (IT1). Illegitimate Tasks New dimension. Item taken from the COPSOQ II role conflicts scale. Inspiration from the theory of stress as a threat to self [62]. Concepts Quality of Leadership The item development opportunities (QLX1) replaces a former item (QL1), where the new item does refer more Experience generally to the whole staff and not to each individual Social Support from Colleagues The two items Support colleagues (SCX1) and Colleagues listen to problems (SCX2) replace former items (SC1, SC2) Experience now stressing that people should report their level of support when they needed support. Formerly it was not possible to distinguish between low support and no need for support. Social Support from Supervisor The two items Support supervisor (SS1) and Supervisor listens to problems (SSX2) replace the former items (SS1, Experience H. Burr et al / COPSOQ III SS2) now stressing that people should report their level of support when they needed support. Formerly it was not possible to distinguish between low support and no need for support. In addition, the revised third item in this scale Supervisor talks about performance (SSX3) also now refers to “immediate” supervisor replacing a former item (COPSOQ II: SS3). Sense of Community at Work Dimension was relabeled. Formerly labeled as Social Community at Work. Experience WorkeIndividual Interface Commitment to the Workplace The item recommend other people (CWX3) replaced a COPSOQ II item recommend a friend (CW3) as friend is a Experience much more limited category than people. Work Engagement New dimension was introduced to cover the Job demands resource (JD-R) model better [57,58]. Concepts Job Insecurity The former Job Insecurity scale was split into this dimension and the dimension Insecurity over Working Conditions (Table 2). Trends Insecurity over Working Conditions The former Job Insecurity scale was split into this dimension and the dimension Job Insecurity (Table 2). Trends Quality of Work New dimension was introduced to cover the JD-R model better [57,58]. Concepts Job Satisfaction A new item on Salary (JS5) was introduced to better measure rewards [70,100]. Experience Work Life Conflict Dimension was relabeled to reflect various national contexts. Formerly labeled Workefamily conflict. An item on Experience being in two places was replaced with a similar item (WFX1) [21] and two new items were included (WF5 on interference and WF6 on changing plans) [18]. Social Capital The domain has been relabeled so as to reflect what these dimensions are now called in practical and scientific Concepts settings [13,59e61]. In the COPSOQ II, the domain was called Values at the workplace level. Vertical Trust The dimension has been renamed from Trust regarding Management. The reason was that the new label has been Experience used more often by network members. The item employees trust information (TMX2) has replaced a former item (TM2 in the COPSOQ II). The new item asks if “the employees” instead of formerly “you” can trust information from the management as this scale is operating on the workplace level and not on the individual level. Horizontal Trust The dimension has been renamed from Mutual Trust between Employees. The reason was that the new label has been used more often by network members. Organizational Justice The dimension has been renamed from Justice. The reason was that the new label has been used more often by network members. Social Inclusiveness The scale was given up, as the questions on discrimination processes are difficult to assess in self reports. Experience Offensive behaviors Cyber Bullying An item on Cyber Bullying (HSM) was introduced [20]. Trends Bullying A new item on being unjustly criticized, bullied, and shown up was added [18,101]. Experience Health and well-being Self-rated Health An item on self-rated health with other response options was added [18]. Experience Stress The item on stress (ST4) was given up as it behaved differently from the rest of the items of the scale (differential Experience item functioning; DIF); prevalence due to socioeconomic status deviated (unpublished analyses). The notion of stress has two meaningseeboth short-term healthy reaction and long-term unhealthy reactioneewhich makes this item difficult to interpret. When no indication of earlier editions of the COPSOQ is mentioned, there is referred to the COPSOQ II. Item names are shown in parentheses. Short labels of items can be seen in Table 2; item wordings are also published [72]. 485 HSM ¼ * See also under ‘What is new?’ in the Introduction. 486 Saf Health Work 2019;10:482e503 Most populations had an average age between 40 and 45 years; the Canadian English population had an average age around 45 years; and the Turkish less than 35 years. Most populations had an equal composition of men and women with two exceptions (Table 3). The German population consisted of 59% men (this is somewhat higher than the German average of 53%), and 68% of the Swedish population was women (reflecting the gender composition of the service sector in Sweden [71]). In the national random samples, the participation rate ranged from 7.3% (Canada) to 70% (Spain), respectively. In the company- based samples, response rates were 59% (Germany), 82% (Swe- den), and 83% (Turkey). The French sample was from internet polling survey, where a response rate could not be calculated. The mode of data collection was internet survey in Canada, France, and Sweden and paper questionnaire in Turkey. Both these methods were used in Germany. In Spain, computer assisted per- sonal interviews (CAPI) in the household were used. The German data were weighted to reflect the composition of Fig. 1. The configuration of the COPSOQ III. For further explanation, refer to “The core the German work force. No other data were weighted. item concept” in the Introduction. 2.2. Variables version; the German and Swedish versions were based on both the In the present article, the international middle version of the Danish and English versions; the Spanish was based on the Danish COPSOQ III was tested (Table 2). This international middle version version. Regarding the Canadian French version, translations were consists of 60 items covering 26 dimensions (the COPSOQ III also performed the same way as for the new COPSOQ III items, in comes in a long version consisting of 148 items covering 45 di- addition, taking the existing Belgian version into account. The mensions) [72]. In addition, two dimensions from the long version Swedish translation also took cognitive interview test results into were tested (Commitment to the Workplace and Work Engage- account [20]. ment; both belonging to the domain WorkeIndividual Interface). The international middle version was tested at least partly in all Four of the 27 tested international middle dimensions were on the countries (Table 4). domain Demands at Work (three of these including core items, Table 2), e.g., Quantitative Demands with three items, of which two 2.3. Analyses were core items. Four dimensions were on the domain Work or- ganization and Job Contents (three dimensions with core items), For each dimension in the international middle COPSOQ III, e.g., the dimension Influence at work with four items, of which one mean scale score and fractions with ceiling, floor, and missing was core. Nine were on the domain Interpersonal Relations and values were calculated. For dimensions measured as multiitem Leadership (seven dimensions with core items), e.g., the dimension scales, Cronbach a was calculated to assess reliability, an a  0.7 Predictability with two items, both core items. Five dimensions was deemed acceptable [2,3]. For each item in the scales, corrected were on WorkeIndividual Interface (four dimensions with core item-total correlations were calculated; values ¼> 0.4 were items), e.g., the dimension Job Insecurity with two items, both deemed acceptable [73,74]. Spearman scale intercorrelations were being core. Three dimensions were on Social Capital (both di- calculated where possible to evaluate divergent and convergent mensions had core items), e.g., the dimension Vertical Trust with validity [2,3]. three items, of which two were core, and one on General Health, Properties of the international middle dimensions were sum- namely Self-rated health consisting of one item, also being a core marized as estimated overall means of the seven versions, where item. Of the 26 international middle version dimensions, 11 con- each of the seven populations analyzed had the same weight; 95% sisted of three to four items; 10 dimensions had two items. In five confidence intervals (CIs) of Cronbach a were estimated using a cases, the middle version dimensions were measured by one item random effects model to account for heterogeneity of the results (Recognition, Illegitimate Tasks, Quality of Work, Horizontal Trust, [75]. Lowest and highest values across populations were also and Self-rated Health; the issue of only using on item is taken up in identified. the beginning of the discussion section of the present article). The exact wordings of all items are available elsewhere [72]. All di- mensions were measured with Likert Scaleetype items and scaled 3. Results to the interval 0-100 [72]. Each scale was scored in the direction indicated by the scale name [72]. Summarized over all countries, most scales of the international The original English COPSOQ III wording was used without middle version showed acceptable to good reliability, that is, modifications as the Canadian English version. In all other versions, Cronbach a more than 0.7 (Table 4). Most corrected item-total the new COPSOQ III items were established by translationeback correlations had acceptable to good levels, i.e., more than 0.4 translation from the English version. The Canadian French version (Table 5). took also the existing French COPSOQ translation and conducted Across populations, three of the 23 scales tested had a Cronbach field tests with translators. A translationeback translation pro- a less than 0.7. These were Commitment to the Workplace (two cedure was performed when there was disagreement between items, mean a ¼ 0.64; 95% CI: 0.61 e 0.67), Demands for Hiding translators. Emotions (three items, mean a ¼ 0.66; 95% CI: 0.58 e 0.73), and In Turkey, the existing COPSOQ I and II questions were trans- Control over Working Time (four items, mean a ¼ 0.69; 95% CI: 0.57 lated using translationeback translation based on the English e 0.78). The Demands for Hiding Emotions scale had an item with a Table 2 Dimensions and items in the COPSOQ III. A short overview Domain Dimension Dimension name II-long/middle/short III-long III-middle/core Level Item, item name. and short label Demands at Work Quantitative Demands QD 4/4/2 4 3/2 J QD1 Work piles up¤; QD2 Complete task; QD3 Get behind*; QD4 Enough time* Work Pace WP 3/3/2 3 2/2 J WP1 Work fast*; WP2 High pace*; WP3 High pace necessary Cognitive Demands DC 4/0/0 4 0/0 J CD1 Eyes on lots of things; CD2 Remember a lot; CD 3 New ideas; CD4 Difficult decisions Emotional Demands ED 4/4/2 3 3/2 J ED1 Emotional disturbing¤; EDX2 Deal with other people's problems*; ED3 Emotionally demanding* Demands for Hiding Emotions HE 3/0/0 4 3/0 JD HE1 Treat equally; HE2 Hide feelings¤; HE3 Kind and open¤; HE4 Not state own opinion¤ Work Organization Influence at Work IN 4/4/2 6 4/1 J INX1 Influence decisions on work*; IN2 Say in choosing and Job Contents colleges; IN3 Amount of work¤; IN4 Influence work task¤; IN5 Work Pace; IN6 How you work¤ Possibilities for Development PD 4/4/2 3 3/2 J PD2 Learning new things*; PD3 Use skills*; PD4 Develop skills¤ Variation of Work VA 3/3/2 2 0/0 J VA1 Work varied; VA2 Do things over and over again Control over Working Time (1 CT d 5 4/0 JD CT1 Decide breaks¤; CT2 Take holiday¤; CT3 Chat with colleague¤; CT4 Private business¤; CT 5 Overtime (2 Meaning of Work MW 3/3/2 2 2/1 J MW1 Work meaningful*; MW2 Work important¤ Interpersonal Relations Predictability PR 2/2/2 2 2/2 D PR1 Informed about changes*; PR2 Information to work well* H. Burr et al / COPSOQ III and Leadership Recognition (3 RE 3/3/2 3 1/1 DC RE1 Recognized by management*; RE2 Respected by management; RE3 Treated fairly Role Clarity CL 3/3/2 3 3/1 JD CL1 Clear objectives*; CL2 Responsibility¤; CL3 Expectation¤ Role Conflicts CO 4/4/0 2 2/2 JD CO2 Contradictory demands*; CO3 Do things wrongly* Illegitimate Tasks IT d 1 1/0 JD IT 1 Unnecessary tasks (4 Quality of Leadership QL 4/4/2 4 3/2 D QLX1 Development opportunities¤; QL2 Prioritize job satisfaction; QL3 Work planning*; QL4 Solving conflicts* Social Support from Supervisor SS 3/3/2 3 2/1 JD SSX1 Supervisor listens to problems¤; SSX2 Support supervisor*; SSX3 Supervisor talks about performance Social Support from Colleagues SC 3/3/2 3 2/1 JD SCX1 Support colleagues*; SCX2 Colleagues listen to problems¤; SC3 Colleagues talk about performance Sense of Community at Work (5 SW 3/3/0 3 2/1 JDC SW1 Atmosphere*; SW2 Cooperation; SW3 Community¤ WorkeIndividual Interface Commitment to the Workplace CW 4/4/2 5 0/0 IJC CW1 Enjoy telling others; CW2 Workplace great importance; CWX3 Recommend to other people; CW4 Looking for work elsewhere; CW5 Proud Work Engagement (6 WE d 3 0/0 IJC WE1 Burst with energy; WE2 Enthusiastic; WE3 Immersed Job Insecurity (7 JI 4/0/0 3 2/2 W JI1 Unemployed*; JI2 Redundant; JI3 Finding new job* Insecurity over Working Conditions (8 IW 5 3/1 W IW 1 Transferred another job *(9; IW2 Transferred another task; IW3 Changed working time¤; IW4 Decreased salary¤; IW 5 Good job prospects (10 Quality of Work QW d 2 1/0 W QW1 Possible to perform own tasks; QW2 Satisfied at workplace level¤ Job Satisfaction JS 4/4/1 5 3/1 W JS1 Work prospects¤; JS2 Work conditions; JS3 Work abilities; JS4 Job in general*; JS5 Salary¤ Work Life Conflict (11 WF 4/4/2 6 2/2 W WFX1 Being in both places; WF2 Energy conflict*; WF3 Time conflict*; WF5 Work demands interfere; WF6 Change plans (continued on next page) 487 Table 2 (continued ) 488 Domain Dimension Dimension name II-long/middle/short III-long III-middle/core Level Item, item name. and short label Social Capital (12 Vertical Trust (13 TM 3/3/0 4 3/2 C TM1 Management trust employees*; TM2 Employees trust information*; TM3Management withhold information; TM4 Employees express views¤ Horizontal Trust (14 TE 4/4/2 3 1/0 C TE1 Colleagues withhold information; TE2 Withhold information management; TE3 Trust colleagues¤ Organizational Justice (15 JU 4/4/2 4 2/2 C JU1 Conflicts resolved fairly*; JU2 Employees appreciated; JU3 Suggestions treated seriously; JU4 Work distributed fairly* Conflicts and Gossip and Slander GS 1/0/0 1 0/0 W GS Gossip and slander offensive behaviors Conflicts and Quarrels CQ 1/0/0 1 0/0 W CQ1 Conflicts and quarrels Unpleasant Teasing UT 1/0/0 1 0/0 W UT1 Unpleasant teasing Cyber Bullying HSM d 1 0/0 JW HSM1 Cyber bullying Sexual Harassment SH 1/1/1 1 0/0 JW SH1 Sexual harassment Threats of Violence TV 1/1/1 1 0/0 JW TV1 Threats of violence Physical Violence PV 1/1/1 1 0/0 JW PV1 Physical violence Bullying BU 1/1/1 2 0/0 W BU1 Bullying; BU2 Unjustly criticized, bullied, shown up Health and well-being Self-rated Health GH 1/1/1 2 1/1 I GH1 General health*; GH2 Rate in 10 points Sleeping Troubles SL 4/4/0 4 0/0 I SL1 Slept badly; SL2 Hard to sleep; SL3 Woken up early; SL4 Woken up several times Burnout BO 4/4/2 4 0/0 I BO1 Worn out; BO2 Physically exhausted; BO3 Emotionally exhausted; BO4 Tired Saf Health Work 2019;10:482e503 Stress ST 4/4/2 3 0/0 I ST1 Problems relaxing; ST2 Irritable; ST3 Tense Somatic Stress SO 4/0/0 4 0/0 I SO1 Stomach ache; SO2 Headache; SO3 Palpitations; SO4 Muscle tension Cognitive Stress CS 4/0/0 4 0/0 I CS1 Problems concentrating; CS2 Difficult thinking clearly; CS3 Difficult taking decisions; CS4 Difficult remembering Depressive Symptoms DS 4/0/0 4 0/0 I DS1 Sadness; DS2 Lack of self-confidence; DS3 Feel guilty; DS4 Lack of interest in daily activity Personality Self-Efficacy SE 6/0/0 6 0/0 I SE1 Solve problems; SE2 Achieving what I want; SE3 Reach objectives; SE4 Handle unexpected events; SE5 Several ways solving problems; SE6 Usually manage Exact formulation of items is available [72]. Italic denotes new Dimension or Item. Bold and italic denote a relabeled Domain, Dimension or wording of Item. Underscore and italic denote Dimension or Item from the COPSOQ I. Underscore, bold and italic denote a relabeled Dimension from the COPSOQ I. Double underscore and italic denote Item transferred from another the COPSOQ II scale. Level: Individual level; J, Job level; D, Department level; C, Company level; W, Workeindividual interface. Note that core items are mandatory in all short, middle, and long national versions of the COPSOQ. Choice of items national middle versions can deviate from the international version listed here. Explanation of footnotes in the table: (1 In COPSOQ I & II labeled Degrees of freedom. (2 From the COPSOQ I Quantitative Demands scale. (3 In COPSOQ II labeled Recognition (Reward). (4 From COPSOQ II Role Conflicts scale, item CO4. (5 In COPSOQ I & II labeled Social Community at Work. (6 From the Work Engagement scale [69]. (7 In COPSOQ I & II labeled Job Insecurity. (8 Split out from the Job Insecurity scale from COPSOQ I & II. (9 From the COPSOQ I & II Job Insecurity scale, item JI4. (10 From the test version of the COPSOQ II Rewards scale. (11 In COPSOQ II labeled Workefamily conflict. (12 In COPSOQ 2 called Values on the workplace level (13 In COPSOQ II labeled Trust regarding management. (14 In COPSOQ II labeled Mutual trust between employees. (15 In COPSOQ II labeled Justice. * Mandatory core item; ¤middle item; otherwise long item. Table 3 Sociodemographic characteristics of the study populations Country Population Collection N Time Women, % Age groups, % ISCO occupational group, % method period <20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60þ Missing 1-2 managers & 3-4 technicians, 5-9 service, Missing professionals associate professionals, sales, and clerical agriculture workers trades, and manual workers Canada, English Canadians Electronic survey 3,328 2016 48 1 11 18 25 30 15 1 42 34 21 3 Canada, French working in 885 2016 49 0 17 25 23 26 9 0 35 40 21 4 workplaces with more than 5 people Age groups, % <25 25-34 35-44 45-54  55 Missing Spain Representative Household CAPI 1,807 2016 51 8 19 29 29 14 0 12 19 70 0 H. Burr et al / COPSOQ III sample of salaried workers. France Representative Electronic survey 1,027 2017 48 5 31 23 28 14 0 12 55 33 0 population of French employees Germany Employees in Risk assessment 13,011 2017 41 6 22 24 30 17 1 21 38 29 11 organizations of surveys 60% different size online, 40 % paper and industry Sweden Convenience sample Electronic surveys 2,110 2016-17 68 3 24 25 23 19 6 72 16 8 4 from workplace surveys. 56% private, 44% public sector Turkey Company-based Paper questionnaire 1,076 2016-17 54 30 38 26 5 0 0 26 36 38 0 manufacturing industry samples from Aegean and Marmara regions, response rate 82.6% Totaly 23,361 2016-17 52 9* 24* 26* 27* 13* 1* 33 36 28 3 ISCO ¼ International Classification of Occupations 2008, CAPI ¼ Computer Assisted Personal Interview. * Except English and French Canada. y Total number of participants; mean proportion of women, age, and occupational groups where each population has the same weight. 489 490 Table 4 Scale characteristics for international standard middle and selected long version* dimensions among 23,361 employees in Canada, Spain, France, Germany, Sweden, and Turkey in 2016-2017 Domain Dimension Dimension name No. Scale Observed Cronbach a 95% CI of a Observed Floor Ceiling Missing and country tested of items mean range of range of a answers, % (range) answers, % (range) answers, % (range) scale means ES, SE, TR Demands at Work Quantitative QD 3 39 23 e 51 0.77 0.71 - 0.82 0.72 - 0.82 12 (1 - 30) 1 (0 - 2) 1 (0 - 2) Demands CA, ES, FR, DE, SE, TR Work Pace WP 2 61 52 e 68 0.80 0.75 - 0.83 0.69 - 0.86 2 (0 - 8) 9 (5 - 13) 1 (0 - 2) Emotional ED CA, ES, FR, SE, TR 3 47 37 e 58 0.80 0.78 - 0.82 0.76 - 0.83 7 (2 - 17) 3 (1 - 5) 0 (0 - 1) Demands ES, TR Demands for HE 3 57 56 e 58 0.66 0.58 - 0.73 0.62 - 0.70 2 (1 - 2) 6 (3 - 8) 1 (0 - 2) Hiding Emotions Work Organization and Influence at Work IN ES, TR 4 42 38 e 45 0.80 0.73 - 0.86 0.77 - 0.83 8 (6 - 10) 3 (1 - 5) 1 (0 - 2) Job Contents Possibilities for PD ES, SE, TR 3 66 64 e 68 0.82 0.76 - 0.87 0.78 - 0.87 2 (1 - 3) 14 (8 - 20) 0 (0 - 1) Development ES, TR Control over CT 4 39 33 e 45 0.69 0.57 - 0.78 0.63 - 0.74 6 (6 - 7) 3 (1 - 4) 2 (0 - 4) Working Time CA, ES, FR, DE, SE, TR Meaning of Work MW 2 72 53 e 80 0.81 0.74 - 0.87 0.62 - 0.91 2 (1 - 4) 25 (8 - 36) 1 (0 - 2) Interpersonal Relations Predictability PR CA, ES, FR, DE, SE, TR 2 56 52 e 64 0.73 0.69 - 0.76 0.66 - 0.79 3 (2 - 6) 6 (3 - 18) 0 (0 - 1) and Leadership Recognition RE CA, ES, FR, DE, SE, TR 1 55 44 e 68 y y y 12 (6 - 24) 14 (8 - 32) 1 (0 - 2) Saf Health Work 2019;10:482e503 Role Clarity CL ES, DE, SE, TR 3 75 71 e 81 0.82 0.79 - 0.85 0.79 - 0.86 0 (0 - 1) 18 (7 - 38) 1 (0 - 1) Role Conflicts CO CA, FR, DE, SE, TR 2 45 43 e 47 0.73 0.67 - 0.77 0.61 - 0.8 6 (2 - 10) 3 (1 - 5) 0 (0 - 1) Illegitimate Tasks IT CA, ES, SE, TR 1 43 30 e 48 y y y 18 (8 - 41) 8 (6 - 12) 0 (0 - 1) Quality of QL ES, DE, SE, TR 3 61 53 e 66 0.87 0.86 - 0.88 0.85 - 0.87 3 (2 - 5) 10 (5 - 16) 2 (1 - 3) Leadership ES, FR, DE, SE, TR Social Support SC 2 68 57 e 81 0.87 0.82 - 0.90 0.77 - 0.92 3 (2 e 4) 25 (11 - 46) 1 (0 - 2) from Colleagues CA, ES, DE, SE, TR Social Support SS 2 69 55 e 82 0.81 0.77 - 0.85 0.72 - 0.86 2 (0 - 4) 21 (6 - 38) 4 (0 - 16) from Supervisor ES, SE, TR Sense of Community SW 2 77 74 e 82 0.79 0.66 - 0.88 0.7 - 0.88 1 (0 - 1) 30 (29 - 32) 6 (0 - 16) at Work SE WorkeIndividual Commitment to the CW 2 69 69 e 69 0.64 0.61 - 0.67 0.64 - 0.64 1 (1 - 1) 13 (13 - 13) 0 (0 - 0) Interface Workplace* DE, SE Work Engagement* WE 3 67 63 e 70 0.85 0.84 - 0.86 0.85 - 0.86 0 (0 - 1) 4 (3 - 4) 1 (0 - 2) Job Insecurity JI CA, ES, FR, DE, SE, TR 2 39 12 e 54 0.72 0.69 e- 0.75 0.66 - 0.76 19 (4 - 42) 7 (0 - 17) 1 (0 - 2) Insecurity over IW ES, DE, TR 3 41 30 e 52 0.76 0.72 - 0.79 0.73 - 0.79 13 (8 - 18) 5 (2 - 8) 1 (1 - 2) Work. Cond. Quality of Work QW ES, SE 1 71 68 e 75 y y y 2 (1 - 3) 26 (15 - 36) 1 (1 - 1) Job Satisfaction JS ES, TR 3 56 53 e 60 0.80 0.76 - 0.83 0.78 - 0.81 2 (1 - 4) 5 (3 - 6) 1 (1 - 1) Work Life Conflict WF CA, FR, DE, SE, TR 2 42 35 e 51 0.84 0.80 - 0.87 0.78 - 0.88 15 (7 - 20) 8 (2 - 18) 0 (0 - 1) Social Capital Vertical Trust TM ES, SE, TR 3 64 56 e 70 0.82 0.79 - 0.85 0.8 - 0.85 2 (1 - 3) 9 (4 - 14) 1 (1 - 1) Horizontal Trust TE ES, FR, SE, TR 1 62 50 e 73 y y y 5 (1 - 11) 15 (7 - 24) 5 (0 - 17) Organizational Justice JU CA, ES, FR, DE, SE, TR 2 57 51 e 64 0.77 0.74 - 0.80 0.7 - 0.82 4 (2 - 7) 6 (4 - 13) 1 (0 - 2) CA, ES, FR, SE Health and well-being Self-rated Health GH 1 63 60 e 66 y y y 2 (1 - 4) 12 (7 - 16) 1 (0 - 2) Values for scale means, Cronbach a, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of Cronbach a, and fractions with floor; ceiling; and missing answers were estimated as the overall mean of the 7 versions. Confidence intervals were calculated using a random effects model to account for heterogeneity [75]. Observed range of scale means and Cronbach a was lowest and highest values in each of the versions tested. ES ¼ Spain, SE ¼ Sweden, TR ¼ Turkey, CA ¼ Canada, FR ¼ France, DE ¼ Germany. * The selected long version scales are Commitment to the Workplace and Work Engagement. y Single item dimension. Calculation of Cronbach a is not applicable. Table 5 Corrected item-total correlations of international middle and selected long version* dimensions Domain Scale Level Item name Item wording Corrected item-total correlation Mean Range Demands at work Quantitative Demands (QD) Middle QD1 Is your workload unevenly distributed so 0.56 0.52 - 0.61 it piles up? Core QD2 How often do you not have time to complete 0.64 0.53 - 0.70 all your work tasks? Core QD3 Do you get behind with your work? 0.66 0.57 - 0.76 Work Pace (WP) Core WP1 Do you have to work very fast? 0.64 0.52 - 0.73 Core WP2 Do you work at a high pace throughout the day? 0.64 0.52 - 0.73 Emotional Demands (ED) Middle ED1 Does your work put you in emotionally disturbing 0.68 0.65 - 0.72 situations? Core EDX2 Do you have to deal with other people's personal 0.59 0.49 - 0.65 problems as part of your work? Core ED3 Is your work emotionally demanding? 0.69 0.63 - 0.75 Demands for Hiding Middle HE2 Does your work require that you hide your feelings? 0.54 0.43 - 0.64 Emotions (HE) Middle HE3 Are you required to be kind and open towards 0.30 0.28 - 0.32 everyone e regardless of how they behave towards you? Middle HE4 Does your work require that you do not state your 0.50 0.34 - 0.66 opinion? Work Organization Influence at Work (I) Core INX1 Do you have a large degree of influence on the decisions 0.57 0.49 - 0.65 and Job Contents concerning your work? Middle IN3 Can you influence the amount of work assigned to you? 0.55 0.49 - 0.60 H. Burr et al / COPSOQ III Middle IN4 Do you have any influence on what you do at work? 0.71 0.68 - 0.75 Middle IN6 Do you have any influence on HOW you do your work? 0.63 0.62 - 0.64 Possibilities for Development Core PD2 Do you have the possibility of learning new things 0.67 0.59 - 0.71 (Skill discretion) (PD) through your work? Core PD3 Can you use your skills or expertise in your work? 0.63 0.47 - 0.76 Middle PD4 Does your work give you the opportunity to develop 0.74 0.72 - 0.78 your skills? Control over Working Middle CT1 Can you decide when to take a break? 0.53 0.49 - 0.57 Time (CT) Middle CT2 Can you take holidays more or less when you wish? 0.43 0.38 - 0.48 Middle CT3 Can you leave your work to have a chat with a colleague? 0.55 0.54 - 0.56 Middle CT4 If you have some private business is it possible for you to 0.40 0.28 - 0.53 leave your place of work for half an hour without special permission? Meaning of Work (MW) Core MW1 Is your work meaningful? 0.68 0.53 - 0.84 Middle MW2 Do you feel that the work you do is important? 0.68 0.53 - 0.84 (continued on next page) 491 Table 5 (continued ) Domain Scale Level Item name Item wording Corrected item-total 492 correlation Mean Range Interpersonal Relations Predictability (PR) Core PR1 At your place of work. are you informed well in advance 0.58 0.50 - 0.66 and Leadership concerning, for example important decisions. changes or plans for the future? Core PR2 Do you receive all the information you need to do your work well? 0.58 0.50 - 0.66 Role Clarity (CL) Core CL1 Does your work have clear objectives? 0.63 0.57 - 0.71 Middle CL2 Do you know exactly which areas are your responsibility? 0.70 0.64 - 0.77 Middle CL3 Do you know exactly what is expected of you at work? 0.69 0.62 - 0.76 Role Conflicts (CO) Core CO2 Are contradictory demands placed on you at work? 0.56 0.45 - 0.66 Core CO3 Do you sometimes have to do things which ought to have been 0.56 0.45 - 0.66 done in a different way? Quality of Leadership (QL) Middle QLX1 To what extent would you say that your immediate superior makes 0.67 0.64 - 0.72 sure that the members of staff have good development opportunities? Core QL3 To what extent would you say that your immediate superior 0.77 0.76 - 0.79 is good at work planning? Core QL4 To what extent would you say that your immediate superior 0.76 0.74 - 0.78 is good at solving conflicts? Social Support from Supervisor (SS) Middle SSX1 How often is your immediate superior willing to listen to your 0.73 0.56 - 0.85 problems at work. if needed? Core SSX2 How often do you get help and support from your immediate 0.73 0.56 - 0.85 superior. if needed? Social Support from Colleagues (SC) Core SCX1 How often do you get help and support from your colleagues. 0.70 0.62 - 0.76 if needed? Saf Health Work 2019;10:482e503 Middle SCX2 How often are your colleagues willing to listen to your 0.70 0.62 - 0.76 problems at work. if needed? Sense of Community at Work (SW) Core SW1 Is there a good atmosphere between you and your 0.61 0.56 - 0.66 colleagues? Middle SW3 Do you feel part of a community at your place of work? 0.61 0.56 - 0.66 WorkeIndividual Interface Commitment to the Workplace (CW)* Long CWX3 Would you recommend other people to apply for 0.63 0.63 a position at your workplace? Long CW4 How often do you consider looking for work 0.63 0.63 elsewhere? Work Engagement (WE)* Long WE1 At my work. I feel bursting with energy 0.68 0.64 - 0.72 Long WE2 I am enthusiastic about my job 0.80 0.79 - 0.80 Long WE3 I am immersed in my work 0.70 0.65 e- 0.74 Job Insecurity (JI) Core JI1 Are you worried about becoming unemployed? 0.57 0.50 - 0.62 Core JI3 Are you worried about it being difficult for you to 0.57 0.50 - 0.62 find another job if you became unemployed? Insecurity over Working Core IW1 Are you worried about being transferred to another 0.58 0.55 - 0.61 Conditions (IW) job against your will? Middle IW3 Are you worried about the timetable being changed 0.58 0.53 - 0.65 (shift. weekdays. time to enter and leave .) against your will? Middle IW4 Are you worried about a decrease in your salary (reduction. 0.54 0.51 - 0.63 variable pay being introduced .)? Job Satisfaction (JS) Middle JS1 Regarding your work in general. How pleased are you with 0.70 0.66 - 0.73 your work prospects? Core JS4 Regarding your work in general. How pleased are you with 0.69 0.65 - 0.72 your job as a whole. everything taken into consideration? Middle JS5 Regarding your work in general. How pleased are you with 0.58 0.54 - 0.62 your salary? Work Life Conflict (WF) Core WF2 Do you feel that your work drains so much of your energy that 0.75 0.64 - 0.81 it has a negative effect on your private life? Core WF3 Do you feel that your work takes so much of your time that it 0.75 0.64 - 0.81 has a negative effect on your private life? Social Capital Vertical Trust (TM) Core TM1 Does the management trust the employees to do their work well? 0.69 0.65 - 0.74 Core TMX2 Can the employees trust the information that comes from the 0.71 0.69 - 0.74 management? Middle TM4 Are the employees able to express their views and feelings? 0.64 0.58 - 0.71 Organizational Justice (JU) Core JU1 Are conflicts resolved in a fair way? 0.63 0.54 - 0.69 Core JU4 Is the work distributed fairly? 0.63 0.54 - 0.69 Countries in which items have been tested are indicated in Table 4, 3rd column. * The selected long version scales are Commitment to the Workplace and Work Engagement. H. Burr et al / COPSOQ III 493 corrected item-total correlation less than 0.4 (HE3: having to be Sensitivity analyses show that the specific level of reliability and kind and open to everyone; mean-corrected item-total correlation the level of intercorrelations to a large degree were influenced by ¼ 0.30). the country. Looking at the specific populations, some countries had scales with insufficient Cronbach a's, in addition to those previously 4. Discussion mentioned. These were Predictability (two items; 0.62 in France and 0.66 in Turkey), Meaning of Work (two items; 0.62 in France), The aim of the present article was to analyze the reliability of the Job Insecurity (two items; 0.66 in France and 0.67 in Germany), and international middle version of the COPSOQ III. The analyses Work Pace (two items; 0.69 in Spain) (table not shown). Further- demonstrated that most international middle scales of the COPSOQ more, in specific populations, some itemseeother than the item III have an acceptable to good internal consistency, as measured previously mentionedeehad insufficient corrected item-total cor- through Cronbach a, across a heterogeneous set of worker samples, relations: in Spain, one item belonging to the Demands on Hiding from multiple countries. Few scales had floor and ceiling effects or Emotions scale (HE4: requirements not stating opinion ¼ 0.34), and high fractions of missing values. The correlation analysis indicates two items in Turkey belonging to the Control over Working Time that dimensions are measuring different constructs as expected. scale (CT2: holidays ¼ 0.38; CT4 leave work for private business ¼ In a few cases, possible problems with internal consistency were 0.28) (Table 5). indicated, which we do not believe are due to translation issues. The mean scores for the international middle dimensions Across the populations being studied, three scales had insufficient ranged from 39 (Quantitative Demands) to 77 (Sense of Community Cronbach a0 s ranging from 0.64 to 0.69. The Commitment to the at Work) (Table 4). For some dimensions, these means reflect large Workplace scale had only two items and could be extended with variations among the populations studied. The largest variations more items. The Hiding Emotions scale had three items, of which were found regarding Job Insecurity (from 12 in Sweden to 54 in one on being kind to everyone consistently correlated poorly with Spain) and Work Life Conflict (where five countries reported the scale. The selection of items within this scale should be values) (35 in Germany to 51 in Turkey). The smallest variation was reconsidered [20]. The Control over Working Time scale worked found regarding Hiding Emotions (56 in Spain to 58 in Turkey). poorly in one country, Turkey, where items on holidays and op- Note that these variations are partly due to variations in the portunities to leave the workplace showed low correlations with number of countries that tested each scale (see Table 4, 3rd col- the scale. Differences in the local context in Turkey (e.g., legislation umn). In some cases, floor and ceiling effects more than 15% were or company policies) might affect specific aspects of control over present. Floor effects were present for Illegitimate Tasks (18%) and working time. This points at examining items in this scale across Job Insecurity (19%). Ceiling effects were seen for Sense of Com- countries and industrial sectors further, possibly also through munity at work (30%), Social Support from Colleagues and from cognitive interviewing [76]. Supervisor (21% and 25%, respectively) as well as Meaning of Work In some language versions, specific scaleseein addition to those and Quality of Work (25% and 26%, respectively). In all cases, floor previously mentionedeehad insufficient Cronbach a0 s ranging and ceiling effects reflected very high or low mean values of the from 0.62 to 0.67. These were Predictability (France, Turkey), dimensions. Meaning of Work (France), Job Insecurity (France, Germany), and Generally, there were low fractions of missing values (Table 4). Work Pace (Spain). Apart from possible translation issues, it might In three scales, fractions of around 5% of missing values occurred. be that local context could play a role. For example, regarding Job These were Social Support from Colleagues, Horizontal Trust, and Insecurity, it might be that conditions at the French and German Sense of Community at Work mainly corresponding to employees labor markets lead to a lower correlation between experience of responding “I do not have colleagues”. worries getting unemployed and worries finding a new job. A The intercorrelations of the international middle dimensionse reason for this could be that even if many workers in these coun- eincluding two selected long version dimensionseecorroborate, tries have permanent contracts, opportunities for further education on the one hand, that all psychosocial working environment di- throughout working life are largely lacking [51]. mensions were distinct from each other, and on the other hand, In the international middle version, some dimensions were only that dimensions within each domain were generally related with measured with one item, namely Recognition, Illegitimate Tasks, each other to a higher degree than with dimensions from other Quality of Work, Horizontal Trust, and Self-rated Health. Regarding domains (Appendix Table 3A-C). However, Commitment to the self-rated health, even if a one item measure has good predictive Workplace from the domain WorkeIndividual Interface was also validity, the use of a scale could improve reliability [77]. It remains correlated highly to some dimensions from the domains Work to be investigated if this is the case regarding other one-item Organization and Job Contents, Interpersonal Relations and measures. Apart from Illegitimate Tasks, the COPSOQ III instru- Leadership, and Social Capital. In addition, Vertical Trust and ment offers additional long version items to increase reliability. Organizational Justice from the domain Social Capital correlated highly with some dimensions from Interpersonal Relations and 4.1. Strengths and weaknesses Leadership and WorkeIndividual Interface. Of 373 in- tercorrelations, only seven were more than 0.60 and none greater It is a strength of the questionnaire that it has been developed in than 0.69 (the latter involving Organizational Justice and Vertical a joint process by different groups of practitioners and researchers Trust). The highest mean intercorrelations regarded dimensions from different social and national contexts. Further it is a strength belonging to the domains Interpersonal Relations and Leadership that the test presented in this article has been carried out among (involving Recognition, Predictability, Social Support from Su- 23,361 employees in seven language versions across six countries pervisor, and Quality of Leadership), WorkeIndividual Interface (Canada, Spain, France, Germany, Sweden, and Turkey). We are not (involving Commitment to the Workplace and Job Satisfaction), aware of a generic questionnaire being tested at the same time in so and Social Capital (involving the dimensions Organizational Jus- many countries and languages. Previous developments of the tice and Vertical Trust). Further details are presented in Appendix COPSOQ were carried out in one European country, Denmark, and Table 3A-C, upper right parts. We found the same general pattern only subsequently adapted and validated in other countries. By in each of the populations studied (ranges in lower left parts of including international experience from a number of countries in Appendix Table 3A-C). the development, as well as in the validation right from the 494 Saf Health Work 2019;10:482e503 beginning of the COPSOQ III, the results of the present study are addition, there is a need to achieve further knowledge about the generalizable to a higher extent. extent to which dimensions of psychosocial working conditions These strengths of the study must be seen in the light of some attribute to different levels of work, such as the occupational level weaknesses. First, the response rate in Canada was low, and a and the department/organizational level. Such studies are very rare response rate could not be calculated in France. As we are looking at [80e83]. Research on the COPSOQ and the JCQ support the inten- associations between items in scales and associations between tion that some dimensions mainly vary between occupations (e.g., dimensions (measured by either scales or single items), low job demands, variation, and influence), whereas others do not (e.g., response rates could potentially be problematic if they led to less leadership, organizational justice, and trust) [13,61,80e85]. variation in responses. However, reliabilities estimate in the Ca- Furthermore, the predictive validity of the instrument could be nadian and French samples was on a similar level to that observed tested. A challenge is that there are several relevant outcomes to in countries with higher response rates. Second, we assessed reli- consider. For example, aspects of health (e.g., self-rated health, ability of scales by calculating Cronbach a. Our reason for using a is depressive symptoms), labor market attachment (e.g., turnover that it is widely known, making it easier for possible users to intentions, exit from work), and job satisfaction. Another challenge interpret our results. In practical and research settings, where is that evidence from longitudinal studies regarding possible effects groups are compared, the question of reliability is different from a of psychosocial factors is limited, with most of the longitudinal clinical setting where a measurement on an individual level needs research in this area focusing on demands, control, and social much more precision. It should be noted that with two item scales, support [11]. one would not expect a very high a, as this would indicate un- necessary redundancy between the items, and potentially a lack of 4.2.2. Use in practical settings breadth in the information captured within the dimension under Another issue is that the discourses and practices regarding investigation. Third, owing to data protection issues (the last par- psychosocial assessments in the workplaces are very different, not agraphs in the ‘Acknowledgments’ subsection), we were not able to only between countries but also within countries. For example, directly analyze DIF for evaluation of measurement invariance differences exist between the area of psychosocial risk assessment across countries. Given we observed differences in the reliability of [86] and the area of organizational development [57,58]. With its scales across countries for some dimensions (e.g., Job Insecurity and broad coverage of concepts, the COPSOQ is applicable to both these Control over Working Time), DIF should be investigated in future approaches. The COPSOQ was originally developed in a risk studies. assessment discourse and is still widely used in this context. However, the instrument also makes possible a range of analyses in 4.2. Perspectives for further development of the COPSOQ an organizational development framework as suggested by the JD- R model, owing to the relatively wide scope of dimensions [72]. We now present some considerations regarding in what di- This wide scope was already initiated in the COPSOQ I (covering rections the COPSOQ could be developed and tested further in the more working conditions than demands and control such as decades to come. Our discussion focuses on reliability and validity, Emotional Demands and Quality of Leadership, and covering also use of the COPSOQ in practical settings, social capital, and current measures of burnout and stress) and has been developed further in trends in the working environment. the COPSOQ II (e.g., Recognition, Trust, Justice) and COPSOQ III (e.g., Work Engagement and Quality of Work). To our knowledge, the 4.2.1. Reliability and validity various ways of using the COPSOQ in practical settings have not In the present article we have tested the reliability of scales of been documented or investigated to a large extent. It is of interest the COPSOQ and if dimensions of the questionnaire (represented by to undertake and document these analyses to facilitate the use of single items or scales) are different constructs. As previously the instrument and exchange of experience between users. mentioned, for both internal consistency and correlations, the re- sults indicate differences between the samples. Some of these dif- 4.2.3. Social capital ferences can be, of course, attributed to the fact that the Turkish, As mentioned in the introduction, the concept of social capital as Swedish, and German data were company-based samples. How- an indicator of resources of the organization has gained increasing ever, differences in internal consistency and correlation estimates interest in practice and research [59e61]. A number of studies have in the nationwide Canadian, Spanish, and French working pop- demonstrated that high organizational social capital is strongly ulations were observed. Therefore, we recommend testing the in- connected to employee well-being [13,87e89], customer/patient strument in each new language version being developed. A number satisfaction [90e92], sickness absence [93], productivity [94e97], of scales of the second version of the questionnaire have been and quality [90,91,98]. Many different indicators of organizational tested using a test retest approach showing good reliability [66]. social capital have been applied, such as trust, justice, collaboration, Test retest approaches of the new dimensions introduced in the mutual respect, workplace community, and common goals. In COPSOQ III are still to come. studies using the COPSOQ measures of trust, justice and collabo- The overall structure of the questionnaire has previously been ration have been the main indicators of social capital [13,93]. The developed using factor analyses [2,3]. In two cases, this has already concept of organizational capital has wide practical and theoretical been performed regarding the present version [78,79], although implications because it is a characteristic of the whole workplace additional studies are needed. Other aspects of construct validity and because it does relate not only to employee well-being but also should be tested. For example, the Swedish version has been to productivity, quality, and customer satisfaction. adapted using cognitive interviewing; this approach seems to be useful for the adaption of other national versions [20]. Further as- 4.2.4. Trends pects of validity are yet to be investigated, not only regarding the The digitalization of working life has led to new organization of COPSOQ but also regarding psychosocial questionnaire tools in work with respect to communication, place, and time [53]. There is general. External validity of experienced psychosocial factors a need to develop new measures to grasp important psychosocial should be investigated. Questionnaire data should optimally be aspects that arise with these developments. Particular dimensions compared with objective measurements or other data independent include demands associated with the flood of information associ- of the self-report, such as observational data or registers. In ated with electronic communication and with technological H. Burr et al / COPSOQ III 495 changes which have increased employer expectations of worker and all COPSOQ international network members contributing to the availability outside of work hours. Seen in hindsight, one could development process. In addition, a special thanks to the anony- wonder why we have not been aware of the need for addressing mous reviewers of the present article. this in the COPSOQ III. Whatever the answer is, this lack of coverage Regarding ethics, the Canadian data were approved by the is shared by research of work and health in general [99]. This makes University Ethics Board of the University of Toronto, the Spanish it urgent to expand the coverage of these issues in future psycho- data by the Research and Ethics Committee of the Trade Union social questionnaires. Institute of Work, Environment and Health (ISTAS), the French data were collected in accordance with code of Ethics of Psychologists, 4.2.5. The future the German data were in accordance with the ethical standards of As the discussion of these issues indicates, the development of the German Sociological Association, the Swedish study was psychosocial questionnaires is a never-ending process. The chal- approved by the Regional Ethics Board in Southern Sweden (Dnr. lenge is to find a balance between needed revisions and keeping 215/476), and the Turkish data was approved of the Dokuz Eylül opportunities for comparisons between populations and time pe- University Non-Interventional Ethics Committee. riods at the same time. Regarding funding, the Canadian test was funded from the operating budget of the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario 4.6. Concluding remarks Workers (OHCOW) with “in-kind” analysis assistance from the Institute for Work and Health (IWH). The Spanish field work was The present article has tested the internal consistency of the supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of COPSOQ III instrument in six countries. Future analyses should Economy, Industry and Competitiveness under grant PI15/00161 examine various aspects of validity, using both qualitative and and PI15/00858. The French test was funded by Preventis. The quantitative approaches, across further countries and industrial German test was funded internally by the FFAW. The Swedish test sectors including comparisons with, for example, observational was funded by AFA insurance Grant No. 130301 & the Swedish data. Such investigations would enhance the basis for recommen- Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare Grant No. dations regarding the use of the COPSOQ III instrument. 2016-07220 and the Turkish test was funded internally by the Dokuz Eylul University. The metaanalysis was funded internally by the BAuA. Those funding the national tests did not influence the Conflicts of interest analyses or interpretations of results of the present article. The Turkish raw data can be obtained in an anonymized form. In The authors declare no conflict of interest. the rest of the countries, no data are externally accessible. In Can- ada, participants were assured that external access could not be the Acknowledgments case; in Spain, France, Germany, and Sweden data protection legislation prohibits it. The authors wish to thank everyone making the testing of the COPSOQ III possible: The employees responding to the question- naire; employers in Germany, Sweden, and Turkey giving access to Appendix Table 1. The development process leading to the ask their employees; data-collecting companies EKOS Probit Panel COPSOQ III and the LegerWeb Panel (subcontracted to EKOS) in Canada, DYM- Market and Social Research in Spain, and OpinionWay in France; Activity Description Participants Period First phaseee defining contents Delphi-like round Item punctuatione Network members and invited researchers Jun-Aug 2013 relevance (email round) Open comments Email round Network members and invited researchers Sep 2013 DiscussioneGhent First review of all comments Network members and invited researchers Oct 2013 COPSOQ International and items COPSOQ use guidelines Workshop Open comments analysis Further review of all comments Working group on comment analysis May 2014 Steering group Translation check, final Steering Committee Sept-Oct 2014 meeting (Barcelona) review of comments & items and psychometrics test Network's comment Email round Network members and invited researchers Jan-Mar 2015 round Steering group meeting Review of comments and items, Steering Committee Jun 2015 (Malmö) Swedish cognitive interviews, and psychometrics test COPSOQ uses criteria Defining use criteria for research Working group on use criteria Jun 2015-May 2018 and risk assessment Network's comment Email round Network members and invited researchers Jul-Aug 2015 round Draft proposal and Email Steering Committee Sep 2015 criteria sent to all networks (continued on next page) 496 Saf Health Work 2019;10:482e503 (continued ) Activity Description Participants Period Discussionee the Paris Review of all comments and items of Network members and invited researchers Oct 2015 COPSOQ International the draft proposal and the COPSOQ Workshop use criteria Final network's Email round Network members and invited researchers Dec 2015-Apr 2016 comment round Beta version Review of last comments, Steering Committee May 2016 launch beta version Second phaseeeempirical testing Data collection Diverse methods depending Network research groups Dec 2016-Dec 2017 on the country Steering group meeting Defining hypothesis and Steering Committee March 2017 (Berlin) statistical analysis Data analysis Metaanalysis Steering Committee and invited researchers Oct 2017-Apr 2018 Final phaseeeagreement Discussion eSantiago Discussion of results Network members and invited researchers Nov 2017 de Chile COPSOQ International Workshop Launching the COPSOQ III Presenting the COPSOQ III for Steering Committee November 2019 a wider audience. COPSOQ ¼ Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Appendix Table 2. Definitions of dimensions of the COPSOQ III Domain Dimension Name Definition Demands at Work Quantitative Demands QD Quantitative Demands deal with how much one has to achieve in ones work. Quantitative Demands can be assessed as an incongruity between the amount of tasks and the time available to perform these tasks in a satisfactory manner. Work Pace WP Work Pace deals with the speed at which tasks have to be performed. Work Pace is a measure of the intensity of work. Cognitive Demands CD Cognitive Demands deal with demands involving the cognitive abilities of the worker Emotional Demands ED Emotional Demands occur when the worker has to deal with or is confronted with other people's feelings at work. Other people comprise both people who are not employed at the workplace, e.g., customers, clients, or pupils, and people employed at the workplace, such as colleagues, superiors, or subordinates. Demands for Hiding HE Demands for Hiding Emotions occur when the worker has to Emotions conceal her or his own feelings at work from other people. Other people comprise both people who are not employed at the workplace, e.g., customers, clients, or pupils, and people employed at the workplace, such as colleagues, superiors, or subordinates. Work Organization Influence at Work IN Influence at Work deals with the degree to which the employee can and Job Contents influence aspects of work itself, ranging from, e.g., planning of work to e.g., the order of tasks. Possibilities for PD Possibilities for Development deal with if the tasks are challenging Development for the employee and if tasks provide opportunities for learning, and thus provide opportunities for development not only in the job but also at the personal level. Lack of development can create apathy, helplessness, and passivity. Variation of Work VA Variation of Work deals with the degree to which work (tasks, work process) is varied or not, that is, if tasks are not repetitive or repetitive. Control over Working CT Control over Working Time deals with the degree to which the Time employee can influence conditions surrounding work, e.g., breaks, length of the working day, or work schedules. Meaning of Work MW Meaning of Work concerns both the meaning of the aim of work tasks and the meaning of the context of work tasks. The aim is “vertical”, i.e., that the work or product is related to a more general purpose, such as healing the sick or to produce useful products. The context is “horizontal”, i.e., that one can see how ones' own work contributes to the overall product of the organization. H. Burr et al / COPSOQ III 497 (continued ) Domain Dimension Name Definition Interpersonal Predictability PR Predictability deals with the means to avoid uncertainty and Relations and insecurity. This is achieved if the employees receive the relevant Leadership information at the right time. Recognition RE Recognition deals with the recognition by the management of your effort at work. Role Clarity CL Role Clarity deals with the employee's understanding of her or his role at work, i.e., content of the tasks, expectations to be met, and her or his responsibilities. Role Conflicts CO Role Conflicts stem from two sources. The first source is about possible inherent conflicting demands within a specific task. The second source is about possible conflicts when prioritizing different tasks. Illegitimate Tasks IT Illegitimate Tasks cover tasks that violate norms about what an employee can properly be expected to do because they are perceived as unnecessary or unreasonable; they imply a threat to one's professional identity. Quality of Leadership QL Quality of Leadership deals with the next higher managers' leadership in different contexts and domains. Social Support from SC Social Support from Colleagues deals with the employees' Colleagues impression of the possibility to obtain support from colleagues if one should need it. Social Support from SS Social Support from Supervisors deals with the employees' Supervisors impression of the possibility to obtain support from the immediate superior if one should need it. Sense of Community at SW Sense of Community at Work concerns whether there is a feeling of Work being part of the group of employees at the workplace, e.g., if employees relations are good and if they work well together. WorkeIndividual Commitment to the CW Commitment to the Workplace deals with the degree to which one Interface Workplace experiences being committed to ones' workplace. It is not the work by itself or the work group that is the focus here, but the organization in which one is employed. Work Engagement WE This dimension deals with the attachment you feel to the task independently of how you experience your workplace [69]. Job Insecurity JI Job Insecurity deals with aspects of security of the employment of the employee, e.g., regarding the risk of being fired or the certainty of being reemployed if fired. Insecurity over IW Insecurity over Working Conditions deals with aspects of security of Working Conditions working conditions such as the content of work, e.g., if one is reallocated within the company, change of working hours, or deterioration of pay. Quality of Work QW Quality of Work deals with the employee's experience of the immediate output of one's work, e.g., the product made, the service accomplished, etc. Job Satisfaction JS Job Satisfactioneesatisfaction with workeedeals with the employees' experience of satisfaction with various aspects of work. Work Life Conflict WF Work Life Conflict deals with the possible consequences of work on privacy or on personal and family life and includes conflict regarding energy (mental and physical energy) and conflict regarding time. Social Capital Vertical Trust TM Vertical Trust deals with whether the employees can trust the management and vice versa. Vertical Trust can be observed in the communication between the management and the employees. Horizontal Trust TE Horizontal Trust deals with whether the employees can trust each other in daily work or not. Trust can be observed in the communication in the workplace; e.g., if one can freely express attitudes and feelings without fear of negative reactions. Organizational Justice JU Justice and respect in the workplace is about if workers are treated fairly. Four aspects are considered: First the distribution of tasks and recognition, second the process of sharing, third the handling of conflicts and fourth the handling of suggestions from the employees. (continued on next page) 498 Saf Health Work 2019;10:482e503 (continued ) Domain Dimension Name Definition Conflicts and COB Conflicts and offensive behavior cover on the one hand being offensive behavior subjected to negative acts such as bullying and Threats of Violence at the workplace and on the other hand conflicts between people at the workplace. Gossip and Slander GS Gossip and Slander is in this context if one has experienced this at the workplace. Conflicts and Quarrels CQ Conflicts and Quarrels are in this context if one has been involved in such occurrences at the workplace. Unpleasant Teasing UT Unpleasant Teasing is in this context if one has experienced this at the workplace. Cyber Bullying HSM Cyber Bullying is in this context if one has been subjected to work- related harassment in the social media. Sexual Harassment SH Sexual Harassment is in this context if one has experienced this at the workplace. Threats of Violence TV Threats of Violence is in this context if one has experienced this at the workplace. Physical Violence PV Physical Violence is in this context if one has experienced this act at the workplace. Bullying BU Bullying is in this context if one has experienced this act at the workplace. Bullying is defined as being exposed repeatedly over a longer period to unpleasant or degrading treatment and not being able to defend himself or herself against this treatment Health and well-being Self-rated Health GH Self-rated/perceived health is the person's assessment of her or his own general health. Sleeping Troubles SL Sleeping Troubles deal with sleep length, determined by e.g., sleeping in, waking up and interruptions of sleep, and quality of sleep. Burnout BO Burnout concerns the degree of physical and mental fatigue/ exhaustion of the employee. Stress ST Stress here is defined as a reaction of the individual. Stress is here defined as a combination of tension and displeasure. As elevated stress levels over a longer period are detrimental to health, it is necessary to determine long-term states of stress. Somatic Stress SO Somatic Stress is here defined as a physical health indicator of a sustained stress reaction of the individual. Cognitive Stress CS Cognitive Stress is here defined as cognitive indicators of a sustained stress reaction of the individual. Depressive Symptoms DS Depressive Symptoms cover aspects which together indicate depression. Personality Self-Efficacy SE Self-Efficacy is the extent of one's belief in one's own ability to complete tasks and reach goals. Here self-efficacy is understood as global self-efficacy not distinguishing between specific domains of life. COPSOQ ¼ Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Appendix Table 3.A. Inter Spearman correlations of international middle* dimensions Domain Dimension Demands at Work Work organization and Job Contents Quantitative Work Emotional Demands Influence Possibilities Control over Meaning of Demands Pace Demands for hiding at Work for Working Work (QD) (WP) (ED) emotions (IN) Development Time (CT) (MW) (HE) (PD) Demands Quantitative 1 0.47 0.41 0.22 -0.03 -0.08 -0.03 -0.11 at Work Demands (QD) Work Pace (WP) 0.32 - 0.58 1 0.39 0.29 -0.05 0.02 -0.19 0.02 Emotional 0.31 - 0.47 0.26 - 0.53 1 0.53 0.09 0.07 -0.08 0.05 Demands (ED) Demands for 0.14 - 0.30 0.27 - 0.33 0.48 - 0.58 1 0.05 0.02 -0.08 -0.01 Hiding Emotions (HE) Work Influence at -0.20 - 0.14 -0.20 - 0.04 0.00 - 0.16 0.04 - 0.06 1 0.46 0.38 0.32 Organization Work (IN) and Job Contents Possibilities for -0.12 - -0.03 -0.08 - 0.22 -0.05 - 0.19 -0.06 - 0.10 0.34 - 0.55 1 0.23 0.60 Development (PD) Control over -0.07 - 0.01 -0.27 - -0.10 -0.15 - -0.01 -0.13 - -0.02 0.34 - 0.43 0.21 - 0.27 1 0.16 Working Time (CT) Meaning of -0.19 - -0.06 -0.05 - 0.24 -0.07 - 0.17 -0.09 - 0.07 0.25 - 0.41 0.46 - 0.71 0.12 - 0.20 1 Work (MW) H. Burr et al / COPSOQ III 499 (continued ) Domain Dimension Demands at Work Work organization and Job Contents Quantitative Work Emotional Demands Influence Possibilities Control over Meaning of Demands Pace Demands for hiding at Work for Working Work (QD) (WP) (ED) emotions (IN) Development Time (CT) (MW) (HE) (PD) Interpersonal Predictability (PD) -0.28 - -0.13 -0.20 - 0.19 -0.28 - 0.04 -0.14 - -0.02 0.28 - 0.52 0.31 - 0.45 0.24 - 0.32 0.27 - 0.47 Relations and Recognition (RE) -0.27 - -0.16 -0.21 - 0.09 -0.35 - -0.04 -0.13 - 0.01 0.22 - 0.46 0.22 - 0.52 0.18 - 0.30 0.12 - 0.52 Leadership Role Clarity (CL) -0.29 - -0.18 -0.06 - 0.20 -0.20 - -0.09 -0.07 - 0.05 0.14 - 0.36 0.25 - 0.53 0.02 - 0.21 0.29 - 0.61 Role Conflicts (CO) 0.26 - 0.48 0.21 - 0.42 0.28 - 0.62 0.21 - 0.21 -0.30 - 0.11 -0.22 - 0.11 0.02 - 0.02 -0.26 - -0.11 Illegitimate 0.30 - 0.34 0.18 - 0.27 0.23 - 0.38 0.19 - 0.26 -0.27 - -0.05 -0.25 - -0.06 -0.09 - -0.01 -0.27 - -0.15 Tasks (IT) Quality of -0.25 - 0.15 -0.18 - 0.06 -0.21 - -0.04 -0.09 - -0.03 0.24 - 0.54 0.26 - 0.46 0.20 - 0.30 0.28 - 0.44 Leadership (QL) Social support -0.19 - -0.10 -0.19 - 0.09 -0.31 - -0.06 -0.05 - -0.04 0.23 - 0.51 0.21 - 0.45 0.22 - 0.36 0.14 - 0.46 from Supervisor (SS) Social support -0.19 e 0.00 -0.13 - 0.16 -0.12 - 0.13 -0.01 e 0.00 0.13 - 0.36 0.14 - 0.41 0.14 - 0.32 0.07 - 0.44 from Colleagues (SC) Sense of -0.21 - -0.10 -0.10 - 0.06 -0.18 - -0.04 -0.07 - -0.01 0.10 - 0.41 0.19 - 0.45 0.12 - 0.30 0.18 - 0.47 Community at Work (SW) WorkeIndividual Commitment -0.17 - -0.08 -0.12 - 0.10 -0.04 - -0.04 d 0.44 - 0.53 0.50 - 0.57 d 0.53 - 0.55 Interface to the Workplace* (CW) Work -0.15 - -0.15 -0.04 - -0.04 -0.03 - -0.03 d 0.42 - 0.42 0.52 - 0.52 d 0.59 - 0.59 Engagement* (WE) Job Insecurity (JI) -0.02 - 0.21 0.01 - 0.13 -0.08 - 0.22 -0.01 - 0.11 -0.16 - 0.08 -0.23 - 0.02 -0.18 - -0.04 -0.27 - 0.03 Insecurity over -0.24 - 0.14 -0.10 - 0.14 -0.24 - 0.16 0.13 - 0.17 -0.15 - -0.09 -0.21 - 0.01 -0.15 - -0.06 -0.20 - 0.06 Working Conditions (IW) Quality of -0.29 - -0.29 -0.16 - -0.16 -0.13 - -0.13 d 0.30 - 0.30 0.36 - 0.36 d 0.35 - 0.35 Work (QW) Job Satisfaction -0.34 - -0.15 -0.28 - -0.17 -0.43 - -0.11 -0.23 - -0.10 0.09 - 0.47 0.25 - 0.54 0.08 - 0.29 0.27 - 0.51 (JS) Work Life 0.11 - 0.51 0.09 - 0.41 0.12 - 0.55 0.12 - 0.12 -0.24 - 0.12 -0.20 - 0.10 -0.12 - -0.12 -0.22 - -0.07 Conflict (WF) Social Capital Vertical Trust (TM) -0.26 - -0.11 -0.17 - 0.13 -0.32 - -0.02 -0.17 - -0.06 0.24 - 0.57 0.29 - 0.50 0.19 - 0.31 0.27 - 0.50 Horizontal -0.16 - -0.07 -0.13 - 0.13 -0.14 - 0.02 -0.07 - -0.01 0.19 - 0.43 0.14 - 0.46 0.17 - 0.25 0.15 - 0.46 Trust (TE) Organizational -0.35 - -0.15 -0.26 - 0.03 -0.34 - -0.03 -0.15 - -0.08 0.21 - 0.52 0.23 - 0.43 0.22 - 0.32 0.18 - 0.45 Justice (JU) Health and Self-rated Health (GH) -0.23 - 0.05 -0.14 - 0.05 -0.20 - -0.06 -0.01 - -0.01 0.06 - 0.27 0.11 - 0.30 0.10 - 0.10 0.04 - 0.29 Well-being Numbers in upper right half are mean correlations across populations. These mean correlations were summarized as estimated overall means of the versions being tested. Ranges in lower left half are minimum and maximum correlations of the populations studied. *And two selected long version dimensions: Commitment to the Workplace and Work Engagement. Appendix Table 3.B. Inter Spearman correlations of international middle* dimensions Domain Dimension Interpersonal relations and Leadership Predictability Recognition Role Role Illegitimate Quality of Social Social Sense of (PD) (RE) Clarity Conflicts Tasks (IT) Leadership Support Support Community (CL) (CO) (QL) from from at supervisor Colleagues Work (SW) (SS) (SC) Demands Quantitative -0.21 -0.20 -0.22 0.38 0.32 -0.13 -0.15 -0.10 -0.16 at Work Demands (QD) Work Pace (WP) -0.11 -0.13 0.02 0.33 0.25 -0.09 -0.11 -0.01 -0.04 Emotional -0.15 -0.19 -0.13 0.42 0.31 -0.12 -0.17 0.01 -0.12 Demands (ED) Demands for -0.08 -0.06 -0.01 0.21 0.23 -0.06 -0.04 -0.01 -0.04 Hiding Emotions (HE) Work Influence at 0.38 0.36 0.23 -0.07 -0.14 0.37 0.35 0.26 0.27 Organization Work (IN) and Job Possibilities for 0.41 0.43 0.38 -0.06 -0.15 0.40 0.37 0.32 0.35 Contents Development (PD) Control over 0.28 0.24 0.12 0.02 -0.05 0.25 0.30 0.24 0.21 Working Time (CT) Meaning of 0.39 0.40 0.47 -0.19 -0.22 0.37 0.32 0.30 0.36 Work (MW) (continued on next page) 500 Saf Health Work 2019;10:482e503 (continued ) Domain Dimension Interpersonal relations and Leadership Predictability Recognition Role Role Illegitimate Quality of Social Social Sense of (PD) (RE) Clarity Conflicts Tasks (IT) Leadership Support Support Community (CL) (CO) (QL) from from at supervisor Colleagues Work (SW) (SS) (SC) Interpersonal Predictability (PD) 1 0.63 0.47 -0.21 -0.32 0.57 0.53 0.37 0.40 Relations Recognition (RE) 0.55 - 0.71 1 0.45 -0.21 -0.33 0.59 0.58 0.35 0.43 and Role Clarity (CL) 0.40 - 0.54 0.34 - 0.56 1 -0.19 -0.23 0.39 0.35 0.31 0.40 Leadership Role Conflicts -0.35 - -0.09 -0.32 - -0.12 -0.29 - -0.10 1 0.60 -0.22 -0.16 -0.02 -0.15 (CO) Illegitimate -0.43 - -0.20 -0.45 - -0.25 -0.31 - -0.19 0.55 - 0.64 1 -0.26 -0.26 -0.12 -0.16 Tasks (IT) Quality of 0.48 - 0.61 0.41 - 0.73 0.29 - 0.51 -0.31 - -0.13 -0.30 - -0.22 1 0.66 0.37 0.41 Leadership (QL) Social Support 0.38 - 0.68 0.36 - 0.69 0.17 - 0.49 -0.30 - -0.07 -0.35 - -0.11 0.53 - 0.75 1 0.49 0.43 from Supervisor (SS) Social Support 0.20 - 0.48 0.17 - 0.49 0.13 - 0.46 -0.20 - 0.12 -0.23 - 0.01 0.20 - 0.50 0.37 - 0.62 1 0.57 from Colleagues (SC) Sense of 0.31 - 0.48 0.30 - 0.56 0.27 - 0.50 -0.22 - -0.07 -0.25 - -0.09 0.34 - 0.50 0.33 - 0.59 0.36 - 0.74 1 Community at Work (SW) Worke Commitment to 0.55 - 0.57 0.60 - 0.66 0.32 - 0.48 -0.35 - -0.05 -0.32 - -0.32 0.52 - 0.63 0.48 - 0.58 0.36 - 0.43 0.42 - 0.53 Individual the Workplace* Interface (CW) Work 0.35 - 0.35 0.45 - 0.45 0.33 - 0.33 -0.29 - -0.29 -0.32 - -0.32 0.37 - 0.37 0.35 - 0.35 0.24 - 0.24 0.31 - 0.31 Engagement* (WE) Job Insecurity (JI) -0.26 - 0.15 -0.31 - 0.09 -0.22 - 0.12 -0.02 - 0.29 -0.02 - 0.20 -0.21 - 0.10 -0.23 - 0.10 -0.19 - 0.05 -0.15 - 0.12 Insecurity over -0.27 - -0.03 -0.26 - 0.30 -0.23 - 0.08 -0.35 - 0.17 0.13 - 0.17 -0.23 - -0.01 -0.23 - 0.03 -0.16 - 0.05 -0.15 - 0.03 Working Conditions (IW) Quality of Work 0.41 - 0.41 0.38 - 0.38 0.32 - 0.32 -0.36 - -0.36 -0.28 - -0.28 0.40 - 0.40 0.36 - 0.36 0.31 - 0.31 0.35 - 0.35 (QW) Job 0.44 - 0.51 0.48 - 0.56 0.31 - 0.45 -0.40 - -0.15 -0.36 - -0.20 0.36 - 0.53 0.26 - 0.53 0.10 - 0.38 0.32 - 0.47 Satisfaction (JS) Work Life -0.30 - -0.01 -0.36 - -0.04 -0.22 - -0.04 0.21 - 0.46 0.23 - 0.34 -0.25 - -0.02 -0.33 - -0.08 -0.22 - 0.05 -0.22 - -0.01 Conflict (WF) Social Vertical Trust (TM) 0.54 - 0.62 0.52 - 0.67 0.32 - 0.55 -0.37 - -0.08 -0.34 - -0.32 0.52 - 0.65 0.40 - 0.62 0.18 - 0.56 0.36 - 0.56 Capital Horizontal 0.28 - 0.43 0.24 - 0.53 0.12 - 0.45 -0.22 - -0.09 -0.24 - -0.14 0.32 - 0.46 0.28 - 0.43 0.27 - 0.54 0.38 - 0.69 Trust (TE) Organizational 0.52 - 0.64 0.34 - 0.69 0.33 - 0.48 -0.35 - -0.10 -0.45 - -0.29 0.54 - 0.69 0.44 - 0.60 0.18 - 0.53 0.34 - 0.59 Justice (JU) Health and Self-rated 0.06 - 0.30 0.08 - 0.36 -0.02 - 0.29 -0.24 - -0.02 -0.19 - 0.00 0.10 - 0.28 0.09 - 0.28 0.07 - 0.29 0.08 - 0.37 Well-being Health (GH) Numbers in upper right half are mean correlations across populations. These mean correlations are summarized as estimated overall means of the overall means of the versions being tested. Ranges in lower left half are minimum and maximum correlations of the populations studied. *And two selected long version dimensions: Commitment to the Workplace and Work Engagement. Appendix Table 3.C. Inter Spearman correlations of international middle* dimensions Domain Dimension WorkeIndividual Interface Social Capital Health & Well-being Commitment Work Job Insecurity Quality Job Work Life Vertical Horizontal Organizational Self-rated to the engagement* Insecurity over of Satisfaction Conflict Trust Trust (TE) Justice (JU) Health (GH) Workplace* (WE) (JI) Working Work (JS) (WF) (TM) (CW) Conditions (QW) (IW) Demands Quantitative -0.13 -0.15 0.07 0.01 -0.29 -0.24 0.38 -0.20 -0.10 -0.24 -0.09 at Work Demands (QD) Work Pace (WP) -0.02 -0.04 0.07 0.05 -0.16 -0.21 0.34 -0.08 -0.02 -0.17 -0.06 Emotional -0.04 -0.03 0.05 0.03 -0.13 -0.21 0.41 -0.15 -0.06 -0.22 -0.13 Demands (ED) Demands for 0.05 0.15 -0.16 0.12 -0.12 -0.04 -0.11 -0.01 Hiding emotions (HE) Work Influence at Work (IN) 0.48 0.42 -0.08 -0.13 0.30 0.33 -0.08 0.37 0.26 0.35 0.19 Organization Possibilities for 0.54 0.52 -0.08 -0.09 0.36 0.41 -0.09 0.42 0.30 0.36 0.22 and Development (PD) Job Contents Control over -0.12 -0.10 0.19 -0.12 0.25 0.21 0.27 0.10 Working Time (CT) Meaning of 0.54 0.59 -0.11 -0.07 0.35 0.41 -0.14 0.41 0.32 0.34 0.18 Work (MW) H. Burr et al / COPSOQ III 501 (continued ) Domain Dimension WorkeIndividual Interface Social Capital Health & Well-being Commitment Work Job Insecurity Quality Job Work Life Vertical Horizontal Organizational Self-rated to the engagement* Insecurity over of Satisfaction Conflict Trust Trust (TE) Justice (JU) Health (GH) Workplace* (WE) (JI) Working Work (JS) (WF) (TM) (CW) Conditions (QW) (IW) Interpersonal Predictability (PD) 0.55 0.35 -0.09 -0.15 0.41 0.47 -0.20 0.58 0.36 0.58 0.21 Relations Recognition (RE) 0.62 0.45 -0.13 -0.04 0.38 0.51 -0.22 0.60 0.38 0.56 0.23 and Role Clarity (CL) 0.40 0.33 -0.03 -0.06 0.32 0.37 -0.11 0.45 0.30 0.41 0.16 Role Conflicts (CO) -0.20 -0.29 0.13 -0.03 -0.36 -0.27 0.36 -0.25 -0.16 -0.25 -0.14 Leadership Illegitimate -0.32 -0.32 0.08 0.14 -0.28 -0.29 0.30 -0.33 -0.19 -0.37 -0.12 Tasks (IT) Quality of 0.57 0.37 -0.02 -0.10 0.40 0.46 -0.16 0.59 0.39 0.62 0.21 Leadership (QL) Social support 0.52 0.35 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.42 -0.22 0.54 0.36 0.53 0.20 from Supervisor (SS) Social support 0.39 0.24 -0.05 -0.07 0.31 0.29 -0.09 0.37 0.43 0.41 0.19 from Colleagues (SC) Sense of 0.47 0.31 -0.01 -0.05 0.35 0.39 -0.12 0.45 0.54 0.47 0.23 Community at Work (SW) Worke Commitment to 1 0.60 -0.07 -0.16 0.52 0.62 -0.30 0.61 0.44 0.57 0.31 Individual the Workplace* Interface (CW) Work 0.60 - 0.60 1 -0.20 -0.19 0.40 0.58 -0.32 0.42 0.25 0.38 0.35 Engagement* (WE) Job Insecurity -0.22 - 0.08 -0.20 - -0.20 1 0.34 -0.14 -0.07 0.21 -0.03 -0.03 -0.07 -0.16 (JI) Insecurity over -0.22 - -0.10 -0.19 - -0.19 -0.48 - 0.62 1 -0.14 -0.12 0.00 -0.16 -0.08 -0.12 -0.08 Working Conditions (IW) Quality of Work 0.52 - 0.52 0.40 - 0.40 -0.14 - -0.14 -0.14 - -0.14 1 0.49 -0.31 0.46 0.35 0.44 0.27 (QW) Job Satisfaction (JS) 0.59 - 0.65 0.58 - 0.58 -0.20 - 0.18 -0.23 - 0.04 0.49 - 0.49 1 -0.23 0.52 0.34 0.48 0.32 Work Life -0.30 - -0.30 -0.32 - -0.32 0.09 - 0.31 -0.34 - 0.18 -0.31 - -0.31 -0.38 - -0.15 1 -0.23 -0.09 -0.24 -0.26 Conflict (WF) Social Vertical Trust 0.60 - 0.62 0.42 - 0.42 -0.26 - 0.13 -0.31 - -0.08 0.46 - 0.46 0.46 - 0.56 -0.27 e 0.00 1 0.51 0.69 0.22 Capital (TM) Horizontal 0.38 - 0.50 0.25 - 0.25 -0.17 - 0.08 -0.17 - -0.03 0.35 - 0.35 0.27 - 0.41 -0.18 - -0.01 0.45 - 0.58 1 0.50 0.20 Trust (TE) Organizational 0.54 - 0.60 0.38 - 0.38 -0.23 - 0.11 -0.24 - -0.03 0.44 - 0.44 0.39 - 0.52 -0.37 - -0.02 0.58 - 0.75 0.42 - 0.59 1 0.23 Justice (JU) Health Self-rated 0.29 - 0.32 0.35 - 0.35 -0.21 - -0.07 -0.24 - 0.08 0.27 - 0.27 0.19 - 0.39 -0.38 - -0.10 0.02 - 0.34 0.04 - 0.28 0.05 - 0.31 1 and Health (GH) Well-being. Numbers in upper right half are mean correlations across populations. These mean correlations are summarized as estimated overall means of the versions being tested. Ranges in lower left half are minimum and maximum correlations of the populations studied. *And two selected long version dimensions: Commitment to the Workplace and Work Engagement. References [10] Siegrist J, Dragano N, Nyberg ST, Lunau T, Alfredsson L, Erbel R, et al. Vali- dating abbreviated measures of effort-reward imbalance at work in Euro- pean cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium. Int Arch Occup Eenviron [1] Nübling M, Burr H, Moncada S, Kristensen TS. COPSOQ International Health 2014;87:249e56. Network: Co-operation for research and assessment of psychosocial factors [11] Burr H, d’Errico A. Priority, methodological and conceptual issues at work. Public Health Forum 2014;22. 18.e1-.e3. regarding epidemiological research of occupational psychosocial risk fac- [2] Kristensen TS, Hannerz H, Hogh A, Borg V. The Copenhagen tors for poor mental health and coronary heart disease. Sociol Lav 2018;63: Psychosocial Questionnaire e a tool for the assessment and improvement 159e81. of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J Work Environ Health [12] Lund T, Labriola M, Christensen KB, Bültmann U, Villadsen E, Burr H. Psy- 2005;31:11. chosocial work environment exposures as risk factors for long-term sickness [3] Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TS, Borg V, Bjorner JB. The second version of the absence among Danish employees: results from DWECS/DREAM. J Occup copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. Scand J Public Health 2010;38:8e Environ Med 2005;47:1141e7. 24. [13] Kiss P, De Meester M, Kristensen TS, Braeckman L. Relationships of organi- [4] Kristensen TS. A questionnaire is more than a questionnaire. Scand J Public zational social capital with the presence of "gossip and slander," "quarrels Health 2010;38:149e55. and conflicts," sick leave, and poor work ability in nursing homes. Int Arch [5] Dollard M, Skinner N, Tuckey MR, Bailey T. National surveillance of psy- Occup Environ Health 2014;87:929e36. chosocial risk factors in the workplace: an international overview. Work & [14] Madsen IE, Larsen AD, Thorsen SV, Pejtersen JH, Rugulies R, Sivertsen B. Joint Stress 2007;21:1e29. association of sleep problems and psychosocial working conditions with [6] Formazin M, Burr H, Aagestad C, Tynes T, Thorsen SV, Perkio-Makela M, et al. registered long-term sickness absence. A Danish cohort study. Scand J Work Dimensional comparability of psychosocial working conditions as Environ Health 2016;42:299e308. covered in European monitoring questionnaires. BMC Public Health 2014;14: [15] Nuebling M, Seidler A, Garthus-Niegel S, Latza U, Wagner M, Hegewald J, 1251. et al. The Gutenberg Health Study: measuring psychosocial factors at work [7] Rugulies R, Aust B, Siegrist J, von dem Knesebeck O, Bultmann U, Bjorner JB, and predicting health and work-related outcomes with the ERI and the et al. Distribution of effort-reward imbalance in Denmark and its prospective COPSOQ questionnaire. BMC Public Health 2013;13:538. association with a decline in self-rated health. J Occup Environ Med 2009;51: [16] Leka SJA, Jain A. Health impact of psychosocial hazards at work: an overview. 870e8. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010. [8] Burr H, Albertsen K, Rugulies R, Hannerz H. Do dimensions from the [17] ILO. Workplace stress: a collective challenge. Geneva: International Labour Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire predict vitality and mental health Organization; 2016. over and above the job strain and effort-reward imbalance models? Scand J [18] Nübling M, Stößel U, Hasselhorn HM, Michaelis M, F. H. Measuring psy- Public Health 2010;38:59e68. chological stress and strain at work - evaluation of the COPSOQ Question- [9] Fransson EI, Nyberg ST, Heikkila K, Alfredsson L, Bacquer de D, Batty GD, et al. naire in Germany. Psychosoc Med 2006;3:Doc05. Comparison of alternative versions of the job demand-control scales in 17 [19] Dupret E, Bocerean C, Teherani M, Feltrin M, Pejtersen JH. Psychosocial risk European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium. BMC Public Health assessment: French validation of the copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire 2012;12:62. (COPSOQ). Scand J Public Health 2012;40:482e90. 502 Saf Health Work 2019;10:482e503 [20] Berthelsen H, Westerlund H, Kristensen TS. COPSOQ II - an update and lin- [46] LaMontagne AD, Krnjacki L, Kavanagh AM, Bentley R. Psychosocial working guistic validation of the Swedish version of a survey for the monitoring of the conditions in a representative sample of working Australians 2001-2008: an psychosocial work environment at workplaces. Stockholm, Sweden: Stress- analysis of changes in inequalities over time. Occup Environ Med 2013;70: forskningsinstitutet, Stockholms Universitet; 2014 [In Swedish]. 639e47. [21] Moncada S, Utzet M, Molinero E, Llorens C, Moreno N, Galtes A, et al. The [47] Smith P, Morassaei S, Mustard C. Examining changes in reported work copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire II (COPSOQ II) in Spain-a tool for conditions in quebec, Ontario and saskatchewan between 1994 and 2003-05. psychosocial risk assessment at the workplace. Am J Ind Med 2014;57:97e Can J Public Health 2011;102:127e32. 107. [48] OECD. Employment outlook. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2017. [22] Rosario S, Azevedo LF, Fonseca JA, Nienhaus A, Nubling M, da Costa JT. The [49] European Commission. Directorate-general for employment SAaI. Labour Portuguese long version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire II market and wage developments in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office (COPSOQ II) - a validation study. J Occup Med Toxicol 2017;12:24. of the European Union; 2017. [23] Pournik O, Ghalichi L, TehraniYazdi A, Tabatabaee SM, Ghaffari M, Vingard E. [50] Benach J, Vives A, Amable M, Vanroelen C, Tarafa G, Muntaner C. Precarious Measuring psychosocial exposures: validation of the Persian of the copen- employment: understanding an emerging social determinant of health. hagen psychosocial questionnaire (COPSOQ). Med J Islam Repub Iran Annu Rev Public Health 2014;35:229e53. 2015;29:221. [51] Buchholz S, Hofacker D, Mills M, Blossfeld HP, Kurz K, Hofmeister H. Life [24] Shang L, Liu P, Fan L, Huakang G, Li J. Psychometric properties of the Chinese courses in the globalization process: the development of social inequalities version of copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. J Environ Occup Med in modern societies. Eur Sociol Rev 2009;25:53e71. 2008;25:572e6. [52] Sixth Eurofound. European working conditions survey e overview report. [25] Alvarado R, Pérez-Franco J, Saavedra N, Fuentealba C, Alarcón A, Marchetti N, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2016. et al. Validación de un cuestionario para evaluar riesgos psicosociales en el [53] Berger T, Frey C. Structural transformation in the OECD: digitalisation, ambiente laboral en Chile. Rev Med Chile 2012;140:1154e63. deindustrialisation and the future of work. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2016. [26] Widerszal-Bazyl M. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) - [54] Chretien KC, Kind T. Social media and clinical care: ethical, professional, and psychometric properties of selected scales in the Polish version. Medycyna social implications. Circulation 2013;127:1413e21. Pracy 2017;68. In Polish. [55] Privitera C, Campbell MA. Cyberbullying: the new face of workplace [27] Setti I, d'Errico A, di Cuonzo D, Fiabane E, Argentero P. Validation and psy- bullying? Cyberpsychol Behav 2009;12:395e400. chometric properties of the Italian Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire II [56] Jönsson S, Muhonen T, Forssell RC, Bäckström M. Assessing exposure to – short version. Boll Psicol Appl 2017;65:48e57. bullying through digital devices in working life: two versions of a cyber- [28] Nübling M, M.V, Haug A, Nübling T, Adiwidjaja A. European wide survey on bullying questionnaire (CBQ). Psychology 2017;8:477e94. teachers work related stress -assessment, comparison and evaluation of the [57] Bakker AB, Demerouti E. Job demandseresources theory. In: Chen PY, impact of psychosocial hazards on teachers at their workplace. Freiburg, Cooper CL, editors. Work and wellbeing: a complete reference guide. Germany: FFAS Freiburg Research Centre Occupational and Social Medicine; Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2014. 2011. [58] Schaufeli WB, Taris TW. A critical review of the job demands-resources [30] Moncada S, Llorens C, Navarro A, Kristensen TS. ISTAS21 COPSOQ: castilian model: implications for improving work and health. Bridging occupational, language version of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. Arch Pre- organizational and public health: a transdisciplinary approach. Dordrecht: ven Riesgos Laboral 2005;8:18e29 [In Spanish]. Springer ScienceþBusiness Media; 2014. p. 43e68. [31] Iordache R, Petreanu V. The Romanian version of the copenhagen psycho- [59] Oksanen T, Kawachi I, Jokela M, Kouvonen A, Suzuki E, Takao S, et al. social questionnaire e short report. Procedia e Soc Behav Sci 2014;149:424e Workplace social capital and risk of chronic and severe hypertension: a 7. cohort study. J Hypertens 2012;30:1129e36. [32] Gerke J, Cornelio C, Zelaschi Alberto M, Amable M, Contreras A, et al. Cultural [60] Oksanen T, Kivimaki M, Kawachi I, Subramanian SV, Takao S, Suzuki E, et al. adaptation and validation of the COPSOQ ISTAS21 questionnaire in Workplace social capital and all-cause mortality: a prospective cohort study Argentina. EPICOH. Barcelona: OEM; 2016A101. of 28,043 public-sector employees in Finland. Am J Public Health 2011;101: [33] Rodrigues CA, Meister de Almeida R, Villar Pellegrin L. Adaptation of an in- 1742e8. strument to assess psychosocial risks at work. Sao Paulo: VII Congresso [61] Berthelsen H, Hakanen J, Kristensen TS, Lönnblad A, Westerlund H. Brasileiro de Avaliação Psicológica; 2015 [In Portuguese]. A qualitative study on the content validity of the social capital scales in the [34] Zárate Castillo BG. Validation of the questionnaire COPSOQ Istas21 on health copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire (COPSOQ II). Scand J Work Organ workers of the HGZMF-21 IMSS in Leon. Guanajuato: Convención Inter- Psychol 2016;1:1e13. nacional de Salud Pública Cuba Salud; 2012. La Habana 2012. [62] Semmer NK, Tschan F, Jacobshagen N, Beehr TA, Elfering A, Kälin W, et al. [35] Nistor K, Ádám S, Cserháti Z, Szabó A, T.Z., A.S.. Psychometric characteristics Stress as offense to self: a promising approach comes of age. Occup Health of the Hungarian version of the copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire II Sci 2019:1e34. (COPSOQ II). Mentálhigiéné És Pszichoszomatika 2015;16:179e207 [In [63] Holman D. Job types and job quality in Europe. Hum Relat 2013;66:475e502. Hungarian]. [64] Smulders P. Work in 27 european countries: testing the north-south hy- [36] Kiss P, De Meester M, Kruse A, Chavee B, Braeckman L. Comparison between pothesis. Tijdschr Arb 2004;20:275e87. the first and second versions of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire: [65] Dragano N, Siegrist J, Wahrendorf M. Welfare regimes, labour policies and psychosocial risk factors for a high need for recovery after work. Int Arch unhealthy psychosocial working conditions: a comparative study with 9917 Occup Environ Health 2013;86:17e24. older employees from 12 European countries. J Epidemiol Community [37] Nolle I. List of Publications with COPSOQ published in peer-reviewed Health 2011;65:793e9. indexed journals. Freiburg, Germany: COPSOQ International Network. 2018.. [66] Thorsen SV, Bjorner JB. Reliability of the copenhagen psychosocial ques- https://www.copsoq-network.org/assets/Uploads/Literaturliste-Mai18- tionnaire. Scand J Public Health 2010;38:25e32. Netzwerk-peer-reviewed-only-V1.pdf. [67] Llorens C, Pérez-Franco J, Oudyk J, Berthelsen H, Dupret E, Nübling M, et al. [38] Li J, Shang L, Galatsch M, Siegrist J, Miuller BH, Hasselhorn HM. Psychosocial Agreed guidelines for the use of COPSOQ III. 2nd ed. Freiburg, Germany: work environment and intention to leave the nursing profession: a cross- COPSOQ International Network. 2018. https://www.copsoq-network.org/ national prospective study of eight countries. Int J Health Serv 2013;43: assets/Uploads/COPSOQ-network-guidelines-for-the-use-of-COPSOQ-III- 519e36. 290618sig.pdf. [39] Berthelsen H, Pejtersen JH, Soderfeldt B. Measurement of social support, [68] Nübling M, Lincke HJ, Schröder H, Knerr P, Gerlach I, Laß I. Desired and community and trust in dentistry. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2011;39: experienced quality of work. In: Hofmann F, Reschauer G, Stößel U, editors. 289e99. Arbeitsmedizin im Gesundheitsdienst. Tagungsband 29 des Freiburger [40] Moncada S, Pejtersen JH, Navarro A, Llorens C, Burr H, Hasle P, et al. Psy- Symposiums Arbeitsmedizin im Gesundheitsdienst. Germany: Freiburg; chosocial work environment and its association with socioeconomic status. A 2015 [In German]. comparison of Spain and Denmark. Scand J Public Health 2010;38:137e48. [69] Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. The measurement of work engage- [41] Kristensen TS, Bjorner JB, Christensen KB, Borg V. The distinction between ment with a short questionnaire. Educ Psychol Meas 2006;66:701e16. work pace and working hours in the measurement of quantitative demands [70] Siegrist J, Wege N, Puhlhofer F, Wahrendorf M. A short generic measure of at work. Work & Stress 2004;18:305e22. work stress in the era of globalization: effort-reward imbalance. Int Arch [42] Estryn-Behar M, Van der Heijden BI, Oginska H, Camerino D, Le Nezet O, Occup Environ Health 2009;82:1005e13. Conway PM, et al. The impact of social work environment, teamwork char- [71] World Bank. Employment in services, female (% of female employment) acteristics, burnout, and personal factors upon intent to leave among Euro- (modeled ILO estimate). World Bank Group; 2019. pean nurses. Med Care 2007;45:939e50. [72] Burr H, Moncada S, Berthelsen H, Nübling M, Dupret E, Perez J, et al. The [43] Schnall PL, Dobson M, Landsbergis P. Globalization, work, and cardiovascular COPSOQ III questionnaire. Freiburg, Germany: The COPSOQ International disease. Int J Health Serv 2016;46:656e92. Network. 2018. https://www.copsoq-network.org/assets/Uploads/annex1- [44] Malard L, Chastang JF, Niedhammer I. Changes in psychosocial work factors Dimensions-and-items-in-the-COPSOQ-III-questionnaire-060718.pdf. in the French working population between 2006 and 2010. Int Arch Occup [73] Gliem JA, Gliem RR. Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha Environ Health 2015;88:235e46. reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. In: Midwest research-to-practice [45] Utzet M, Moncada S, Molinero E, Llorens C, Moreno N, Navarro A. The conference in adult, continuing, and community education 2003. changing patterns of psychosocial exposures at work in the south of Europe: [74] Boronat M, Gonzalez-Lleo A, Rodriguez-Perez C, Feldt-Rasmussen U, Lopez- Spain as a labor market laboratory. Am J Ind Med 2014;57:1032e42. Plasencia Y, Rasmussen AK, et al. Adaptation and cross-cultural validation of H. Burr et al / COPSOQ III 503 the Spanish version of the thyroid-related quality-of-life patient-reported [87] Tsuboya T, Tsutsumi A, Kawachi I. Change in psychological distress following outcome questionnaire. Endocrinol Diabetes Y Nutr 2018;65:500e7. change in workplace social capital: results from the panel surveys of the J- [75] Hakstian AR, Whalen TE. A k-sample significance test for independent alpha HOPE study. Occup Environ Med 2015;72:188e94. coefficients. Psychometrika 1976;41:219e31. [88] Driller E, Ommen O, Kowalski C, Ernstmann N, Pfaff H. The relationship [76] Willis GB, Miller K. Cross-cultural cognitive interviewing: seeking compa- between social capital in hospitals and emotional exhaustion in clinicians: a rability and enhancing understanding. Field Methods 2011;23:331e41. study in four German hospitals. Int J Soc Psychiatr 2011;57:604e9. [77] Bjorner JB, Kristensen TS, Orth-Gomér K, Tibblin G, Sullivan M, [89] Kouvonen A, Oksanen T, Vahtera J, Stafford M, Wilkinson R, Schneider J, et al. Westerholm P. Self-rated health: a useful concept in research, prevention Low workplace social capital as a predictor of depression: the Finnish Public and clinical medicine. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Planning Coordina- Sector Study. Am J Epidemiol 2008;167:1143e51. tion of Research F. R. N.; 1996. [90] Gittell JH. High performance healthcare: using the power of relationships to [78] Ramkissoon A, Smith P, Oudyk J. Dissecting the effect of workplace expo- achieve quality, efficiency and resilience. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2009. sures on workers' rating of psychological health and safety. Am J Ind Med [91] Gittell JH. The southwest airlines way: using the power of relationships to 2019;62:412e21. achieve high performance. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2003. [79] Sahan C, Baydur H, Demiral Y. A novel version of Copenhagen Psychosocial [92] Perzynski AT, Caron A, Margolius D, Sudano Jr JJ. Primary care practice Questionnaire-3: Turkish validation study. Arch Environ Occup Health 2018: workplace social capital: a potential secret sauce for improved staff well- 1e13. being and patient experience. J Patient Exp 2019;6:72e80. [80] Bültmann U, Kant I, van Amelsvoort LG, van den Brandt PA, Kasl SV. Dif- [93] Rugulies R, Hasle P, Pejtersen JH, Aust B, Bjorner JB. Workplace social capital ferences in fatigue and psychological distress across occupations: results and risk of long-term sickness absence. Are associations modified by occu- from the maastricht cohort study of fatigue at work. J Occup Environ Med pational grade? Eur J Public Health 2016;26:328e33. 2001;43:976e83. [94] Burchell M, Robin J. The great workplace: how to build it, how to keep it, and [81] Fredlund P, Hallqvist J, Diderichsen F. Psychosocial job exposure matrix. An why it matters. New York: Wiley; 2010. update of a classification system for work-related psychosocial exposures. [95] de Jong T. Linking social capital to knowledge productivity: an explorative In: Marklund S, editor. Arbete och Hälsa. Stockholm: National Institute for study on the relationship between social capital and learning in knowledge- working life; 2000 [In Swedish]. productive networks. Enschede, Netherlands: Springer Uitgeverij; 2010. [82] Schwartz J, Pieper C, Karasek R. A procedure for linking psychosocial [96] Maurer I, Bartsch V, Ebers M. The value of intra-organizational social capital: job characteristics data to health surveys. Am J Public Health 1988;78:904e how it fosters knowledge transfer, innovation performance, and growth. 9. Organ Stud 2011;32:157e85. [83] Nübling M, Vomstein M, Haug A, Lincke HJ. Are reference data from the [97] Boedker C, Meagher K, Vidgen R, Cogin J, Mouritsen J. Doing more with less: COPSOQ database suitable for a JEM on psychosocial factors at work? Zbl productivity or starvation? The intellectual asset health check. Public Money Arbeitsmed 2017;67:151e4 [In German]. Manag 2017;37:31e8. [84] Berthelsen H, Conway PM, Clausen T. Is organizational justice climate at the [98] Leana CR, Pil FK. Social capital and organizational performance: evidence workplace associated with individual-level quality of care and organizational from urban public schools. Organ Sci 2006;17:353e66. affective commitment? A multi-level, cross-sectional study on dentistry in [99] Müller-Thur K, Angerer P, Körner U, Dragano N. Working with digital tech- Sweden. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2018;91:237e45. nologies, psychosocial stress and potential health consequences. Arbeitsmed [85] Berthelsen H, Westerlund H, Hakanen JJ, Kristensen TS. It is not just about Sozialmed Umweltmed 2018;53:387e91 [In German]. occupation, but also about where you work. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol [100] Siegrist J. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. 2017;45:372e9. J Occup Health Psychol 1996;1:27e41. [86] Janetzke H, Ertel M. Psychosocial risk management in a european com- [101] Garthus-Niegel S, Nubling M, Letzel S, Hegewald J, Wagner M, Wild PS, et al. parison. Dortmund: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin; Development of a mobbing short scale in the gutenberg health study. Int 2017. Arch Occup Environ Health 2016;89:137e46.