Abstract
Background
Effort-reward imbalance (ERI) is an established conceptualisation of work stress. Although a validated effort-reward questionnaire is available for public use, many epidemiological studies adopt shortened scales and proxy measures. To examine the agreement between different abbreviated measures and the original instrument, we compared different versions of the effort-reward scales available in 15 European cohort studies participating in the IPD-Work (Individual-participant-data meta-analysis in working populations) consortium.
Methods
Five of the 15 studies provide information on the original (‘complete’) scales measuring ‘effort’ and ‘reward’, whereas the 10 remaining studies used ‘partial’ scales. To compare different versions of the ERI scales, we analyse individual-level data from 31,790 participants from the five studies with complete scales.
Results
Pearson’s correlation between partial and complete scales was very high in case of ‘effort’ (where 2 out of 3 items were used) and very high or high in case of ‘reward’, if at least 4 items (out of 7) were included. Reward scales composed of 3 items revealed good to satisfactory agreement, and in one case, a reward scale consisting of 2 items only demonstrated a modest, but still acceptable degree of agreement. Sensitivity and specificity of a composite measure, the ratio of effort and reward, comparing partial versus complete scales ranged between 59–93 and 85–99 %, respectively. Complete and partial scales were strongly associated with poor self-rated health.
Conclusion
Our results support the notion that short proxy measures or partial versions of the original scales can be used to assess effort-reward imbalance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Belkic KL, Landsbergis PA, Schnall PL, Baker D (2004) Is job strain a major source of cardiovascular disease risk? Scand J Work Environ Health 30:85–128
Blekesaune M, Solem PE (2005) Working conditions and early retirement: a prospective study of retirement behavior. Res Aging 27:3–30
Cartwright S, Cooper CL (eds) (2009) The Oxford handbook of organizational well-being. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dragano N (2007) Arbeit, stress und krankheitsbedingte Frührenten: Zusammenhänge aus theoretischer und empirischer Sicht. [Work, stress and health-related early retirement: theoretical and empirical analyses] VS Verlag
Elovainio M, Kivimäki M, Vahtera J (2002) Organizational justice: evidence of a new psychosocial predictor of health. Am J Public Health 92:105–108
Fahlen G, Peter R, Knutsson A (2004) The Effort-Reward Imbalance model of psychosocial stress at the workplace—a comparison of ERI exposure assessment using two estimation methods. Work Stress 18:81–88
Fransson EI, Nyberg ST, Heikkila K, Alfredsson L, De Bacquer D, Batty GD et al (2012) Comparison of alternative versions of the job demand-control scales in 17 European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium. BMC Public Health 12:62
Greenberg J (2010) Organizational injustice as an occupational health risk. Acad Manag Ann 4:205–243
Head J, Kivimäki M, Siegrist J, Ferrie JE, Vahtera J, Shipley MJ, Marmot MG (2007) Effort-reward imbalance and relational injustice at work predict sickness absence: the Whitehall II study. J Psychosom Res 63:433–440
Karasek R, Theorell T (1990) Healthy work. Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. Basic Books, New York
Kuper H, Singh-Manoux A, Siegrist J, Marmot M (2002) When reciprocity fails: effort-reward imbalance in relation to coronary heart disease and health functioning within the Whitehall II study. Occup Environ Med 59:777–784
Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174
Leineweber C, Wege N, Westerlund H, Theorell T, Wahrendorf M, Siegrist J (2010) How valid is a short measure of effort-reward imbalance at work? A replication study from Sweden. Occup Environ Med 67:526–531
Li J, Loerbroks A, Jarczok MN, Schöllgen I, Bosch JA, Mauss D et al (2012) Psychometric properties and differential explanation of a short measure of effort-reward imbalance at work: A study of industrial workers in Germany. Am J Industrial Med. doi:10.1002/ajim.22018
Li J, Loerbroks A, Shang L, Wege N, Wahrendorf M, Siegrist J (2012b) Validation of a short measure of effort-reward imbalance in the workplace: evidence from China. J Occup Health. doi:10.1539/joh.12-0106-BR
Magnavita N, Garbarino S, Siegrist J (2012) The use of parsimonious questionnaires in occupational health surveillance: psychometric properties of the short Italian version of the effort/reward imbalance questionnaire. ScientificWorldJournal. doi:10.1100/2012/372852
Nieuwenhuijsen K, Bruinvels D, Frings-Dresen M (2010) Psychosocial work environment and stress-related disorders, a systematic review. Occup Med 60:277–286
Nyberg ST, Heikkilä K, Fransson EI, Alfredsson L, de Bacquer D, Bjorner JB et al (2012) Job strain in relation to body mass index: pooled analysis of 160.000 adults from 13 cohort studies. J Intern Med 272:65–73
Salavecz G, Chandola T, Pikhart H, Dragano N, Siegrist J, Jockel KH et al (2010) Work stress and health in Western European and post-communist countries: an East-West comparison study. J Epidemiol Community Health 64:57–62
Schnall PL, Dobson M, Rosskam E (2009) Unhealthy work: causes, consequences, cures. Baywood Pub. Co., Amityville
Siegrist J (1996) Adverse health effects of high effort/low reward conditions. J Occup Health Psychol 1:27–41
Siegrist J, Starke D, Chandola T, Godin I, Marmot M, Niedhammer I, Peter R (2004) The measurement of effort-reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Soc Sci Med 58:1483–1499
Siegrist J, Wege N, Pühlhofer F, Wahrendorf M (2009) A short generic measure of work stress in the era of globalization: effort-reward imbalance. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 82:1005–1013
Stansfeld S, Candy B (2006) Psychosocial work environment and mental health—a meta-analytic review. Scand J Work Environ Health 32:443–462
Steptoe A, Kivimäki M (2012) Stress and cardiovascular disease. Nat Rev Cardiol. doi:10.1038/ncardio.2012.45
Tsutsumi A, Kawakami N (2004) A review of empirical studies on the model of effort-reward imbalance at work: reducing occupational stress by implementing a new theory. Soc Sci Med 59:2335–2359
Tsutsumi A, Iwata N, Watanabe N, de Jonge J, Pikhart H, Fernández-López JA, Xu L, Peter R, Knutsson A, Niedhammer I, Kawakami N, Siegrist J (2009) Application of item response theory to achieve cross-cultural comparability of occupational stress measurement. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 18:58–67
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dirk De Bacquer, Annalisa Casini, Els Clays, France Kittel (Belstress), Jakob B Bjorner, Marianne Borritz, Hermann Burr, Ida E H Madsen, Martin Lindhardt Nielsen, Jan H Pejtersen (COPSOQ-I, COPSOQ-II, DWECS, IPAW, PUMA studies), Jaana Pentti, Paula Salo, Tuula Oksanen, Jussi Vahtera, Marianna Virtanen (FPS), Goedele A. Geuskens, Wendela E. Hooftman, Irene I.L.D. Houtman (POLS, NWCS), Peter JM Westerholm (WOLF S), G. David Batty, Jane E. Ferrie and Michael G. Marmot (Whitehall II) for IPD-Work Consortium collaboration and providing information on effort-reward items available in the respective studies. The IPD-Work consortium is supported by the EU New OSH ERA research programme (funded by the Finnish Work Environment Fund, Finland, the Swedish Research Council for Working Life and Social Research, Sweden, the German Social Accident Insurance, Germany, the Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Denmark), the Academy of Finland (grant #132944), the BUPA Foundation (grant 22094477). MK is supported by the Medical Research Council, UK, and the US National Institutes of Health (R01HL036310; R01AG034454), and the Academy of Finland.
Ethical approval
Each constituent study in the IPD-Work consortium was approved by the relevant local or national ethics committees, and all participants gave informed consent to take part. Details of the ethical approval in each study are provided in Appendix 1.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This study was conducted for the IPD-Work consortium.
Johannes Siegrist and Nico Dragano: Equal contribution as first authors.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Siegrist, J., Dragano, N., Nyberg, S.T. et al. Validating abbreviated measures of effort-reward imbalance at work in European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 87, 249–256 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-013-0855-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-013-0855-z