Journal of Occupational
Health and Epidemiology
Rafsanjan university Of medical sciences
Volume 12, Issue 3 (Summer 2023)
J Occup Health Epidemiol 2023, 12(3): 163-174 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Etemadinezhad S, Kalteh H O, Mousavinasab S, Mohsenabadi M. Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ III). J Occup Health Epidemiol 2023; 12 (3) :163-174
URL: http://johe.rums.ac.ir/article-1-654-en.html
URL: http://johe.rums.ac.ir/article-1-654-en.html
Related article in
Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Similar articles
1- Associated Prof., Dept. of Occupational Health, Faculty of Public Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
2- Assistant Prof., Dept. of Occupational Health, Faculty of Public Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran. ,h.omid@mazums.ac.ir
3- Associated Prof., Dept. of Biostatistics, Faculty of Public Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
4- M.Sc. in Ergonomics, Dept. of Occupational Health, Faculty of Public Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
2- Assistant Prof., Dept. of Occupational Health, Faculty of Public Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran. ,
3- Associated Prof., Dept. of Biostatistics, Faculty of Public Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
4- M.Sc. in Ergonomics, Dept. of Occupational Health, Faculty of Public Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
Article history
Received: 2022/10/29
Accepted: 2023/07/29
ePublished: 2023/09/28
Accepted: 2023/07/29
ePublished: 2023/09/28
Subject:
Occupational Health
Abstract: (638 Views)
Background: Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire is a reliable tool to measure the work-related psychosocial factors. The third version of this questionnaire was developed with the substantial changes in comparison with previous versions which would require the re-evaluation of psychometric properties. This study aimed to examine the validity, and reliability of the middle version and Persian translation of the COPSOQ III.
Materials & Methods: In this descriptive study, all workers of a number of industrial and production units in the northeast of Iran were invited during 2020 to 2022. Following a forward-backward translation of the COPSOQ III original form, 276 participants completed translated questionnaires. Alpha coefficient, content validity index (CVI), content validity ratio (CVR), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and Pearson’s correlation test with 0.05 significance level, were employed to examine the psychometric properties and reliability of questionnaire.
Results: The average age of the subjects was 36.3 ± 5.9 years. Cronbach alpha coefficient for all dimensions was between 0.56 and 0.88 and for the total scale was 0.88. The team of 22 ergonomics and psychosocial experts reported that the mean of CVI and CVR were 0.97 and 0.78, respectively. The two-factor model fit was reasonable (RMSEA = 0.078; χ 2 = 590; χ 2/df = 2.694 (p < 0.001, df = 219); CFI = 0.89; and TLI = 0.85).
Conclusions: The finding indicated that the Persian version of the COPSOQ III is a valid and reliable tool to survey work related psychosocial factors.
Materials & Methods: In this descriptive study, all workers of a number of industrial and production units in the northeast of Iran were invited during 2020 to 2022. Following a forward-backward translation of the COPSOQ III original form, 276 participants completed translated questionnaires. Alpha coefficient, content validity index (CVI), content validity ratio (CVR), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and Pearson’s correlation test with 0.05 significance level, were employed to examine the psychometric properties and reliability of questionnaire.
Results: The average age of the subjects was 36.3 ± 5.9 years. Cronbach alpha coefficient for all dimensions was between 0.56 and 0.88 and for the total scale was 0.88. The team of 22 ergonomics and psychosocial experts reported that the mean of CVI and CVR were 0.97 and 0.78, respectively. The two-factor model fit was reasonable (RMSEA = 0.078; χ 2 = 590; χ 2/df = 2.694 (p < 0.001, df = 219); CFI = 0.89; and TLI = 0.85).
Conclusions: The finding indicated that the Persian version of the COPSOQ III is a valid and reliable tool to survey work related psychosocial factors.
References
1. Stauder A, Nistor K, Zakor T, Szabó A, Nistor A, Ádám S, et al. Quantifying multiple work-related psychosocial risk factors: proposal for a composite indicator based on the COPSOQ II. Int J Behav Med. 2017;24(6):915-926. [DOI] [PMID]
2. Cox T, Griffiths A. The nature and measurement of work-related stress: theory and practice. In: Wilson, J.R. and Corlett, N. (eds.) Evaluation of Human Work, 3rd Ed. Abingdon, UK: Routledge; 2005.
3. Hackman JR, Oldham GR. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1976;16(2):250-79. [DOI]
4. Karasek Jr RA. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Adm Sci Q. 1979;24(2):285-308. [DOI]
5. Karasek R. Lower health risk with increased job control among white collar workers. J Organ Behav. 1990;11(3):171-85. [DOI]
6. Siegrist J. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. J Occup Health Psychol. 1996;1(1):27-41. [DOI] [PMID]
7. Kompier M. Job design and well-being. In: Schabracq MJ, Winnubst JAM, Cooper CL, editor(s). The handbook of work and health psychology. 2nd ed. New York City, United States: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2003. P.429-54. [DOI]
8. Tabanelli MC, Depolo M, Cooke RM, Sarchielli G, Bonfiglioli R, Mattioli S, et al. Available instruments for measurement of psychosocial factors in the work environment. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2008;82(1):1-12. [DOI] [PMID]
9. Mokarami H, Toderi S. Reclassification of the work-related stress questionnaires scales based on the work system model: A scoping review and qualitative study. Work. 2019;64(4):787-95. [DOI] [PMID]
10. Burr H, Berthelsen H, Moncada S, Nübling M, Dupret E, Demiral Y, et al. The Third Version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Saf Health Work. 2019;10(4):482-503. [DOI] [PMID] []
11. Kristensen TS, Hannerz H, Høgh A, Borg V. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire-a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2005;31(6):438-49. [DOI] [PMID]
12. Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TS, Borg V, Bjorner JB. The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(3 Suppl):8-24. [DOI] [PMID]
13. Llorens C. Pérez-Franco J, Oudyk J, Berthelsen H, Dupret M, Nübling H, et al. COPSOQ III. Guidelines and Questionnaire. Denmark: COPSOQ III International Network; 2019.
14. Burr H, Berthelsen H, Moncada S, Nübling M, Dupret E, Demiral Y, et al. The third version of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. Saf Health Work. 2019;10(4):482-503. [DOI] [PMID] []
15. Aminian M, Dianat I, Miri A, Asghari-Jafarabadi M. The Iranian version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) for assessment of psychological risk factors at work. Health Promot Perspect. 2016;7(1):7-13. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
16. Arsalani N, Fallahi-Khoshknab M, Ghaffari M, Josephson M, Lagerstrom M. Adaptation of questionnaire measuring working conditions and health problems among Iranian nursing personnel. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2011;5(3):177-82. [DOI] [PMID]
17. Pournik O, Ghalichi L, TehraniYazdi A, abatabaee SM, Ghaffari M, Vingard E. Measuring psychosocial exposures: validation of the Persian of the copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire (COPSOQ). Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2015;29:221. [PMID] [PMCID]
18. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42. [DOI] [PMID]
19. Munro BH. Statistical methods for health care research. 5th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
20. Arsalani N, Fallahi-Khoshknab M, Ghaffari M, Josephson M, Lagerstrom M. Adaptation of questionnaire measuring working conditions and health problems among Iranian nursing personnel. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2011;5(3):177-82. [DOI] [PMID]
21. Kristensen TS. A questionnaire is more than a questionnaire. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(3 Suppl):149-55. [DOI] [PMID]
22. Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TS, Borg V, Bjorner JB. The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(3 Suppl):8-24. [DOI] [PMID]
23. Kristensen TS, Borg V. AMI’s spørgeskema om psykisk arbejdsmiljø. 2000.
24. Kristensen TS, Hannerz H, Høgh A, Borg V. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire--a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2005;31(9):438-49. [DOI] [PMID]
25. Berthelsen H, Westerlund H, Bergström G, Burr H. Validation of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire Version III and establishment of benchmarks for psychosocial risk management in Sweden. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(9):3179. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
26. Dupret E, Bocéréan C, Teherani M, Feltrin M, Pejtersen JH. Psychosocial risk assessment: French validation of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ). Scand J Public Health. 2012;40(5):482-90. [DOI] [PMID]
27. Moncada S, Utzet M, Molinero E, Llorens C, Moreno N, Galtés A, et al. The copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire II (COPSOQ II) in Spain --a tool for psychosocial risk assessment at the workplace. Am J Ind Med. 2014;57(1):97-107. [DOI] [PMID]
28. Nübling M, Stößel U, Hasselhorn HM, Michaelis M, Hofmann F. Measuring psychological stress and strain at work-Evaluation of the COPSOQ Questionnaire in Germany. Psychosoc Med. 2006;3:Doc05. [PMID] [PMCID]
29. Alvarado R, Pérez-Franco J, Saavedra N, Fuentealba C, Alarcón A, Marchetti N, et al. [Validation of a questionnaire for psychosocial risk assessment in the workplace in Chile]. Rev Med Chil. 2012;140(9):1154-63. [DOI] [PMID]
30. Burr H, Berthelsen H, Moncada S, Nübling M, Dupret E, Demiral Y, et al. The third version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Saf Health Work. 2019;10(4):482-503. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
31. Pournik O, Ghalichi L, TehraniYazdi A, Tabatabaee SM, Ghaffari M, Vingard E. Measuring psychosocial exposures: validation of the Persian of the copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire (COPSOQ). Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2015;29:221. [PMID] [PMCID]
32. Schnall PL, Dobson M, Landsbergis P. Globalization, Work, and Cardiovascular Disease. Int J Health Serv. 2016;46(4):656-92. [DOI] [PMID]
33. Shang L, Liu P, Fan LB, Gu HK, Li J. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. J Environ Occup Med. 2008;25(6):572-6.
34. Wainer H, Thissen D. True score theory: The traditional method. In: Test scoring: London, United Kingdom: Routledge; 2001. P.35-84. [DOI]
35. Arassi M, Mohammadi H, Motamedzade M, Kamalinia M, Mardani D, Mohammadi Beiragani D, et al. The association between psychosocial factors and occupational accidents among Iranian drilling workers. Iran J Ergon. 2014;2(1):36-45. [Article]
36. Nübling M, Vomstein M, Haug A, Nübling T, Adiwidjaja A. European-wide survey on teachers work related stress-assessment, comparison and evaluation of the impact of psychosocial hazards on teachers at their workplace. Brussels, Belgium: European Trade :union: Committee for Education. 2011 Dec.
37. Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TS, Borg V, Bjorner JB. The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(3 Suppl):8-24. [DOI] [PMID]
38. Thorsen SV, Bjorner JB. Reliability of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(3 Suppl):25-32. [DOI] [PMID]
39. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res. 1992;21(2):230-258. [DOI]
40. Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2):238-46. [DOI] [PMID]
41. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics. Vol. 5. London, United Kingdom: Pearson; 2013.
42. Cotrim TP, Bem-Haja P, Pereira A, Fernandes C, Azevedo R, Antunes S, et al. The Portuguese Third Version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire: Preliminary Validation Studies of the Middle Version among Municipal and Healthcare Workers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1167. [DOI] [PMID] []
43. Şahan C, Baydur H, Demiral Y. A novel version of Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire-3: Turkish validation study. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2019;74(6):297-309. [DOI] [PMID]
44. Nuebling M, Hasselhorn HM. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire in Germany: from the validation of the instrument to the formation of a job-specific database of psychosocial factors at work. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(3 Suppl):120-4. [DOI] [PMID]
45. Dupret E, Bocéréan C, Teherani M, Feltrin M, Pejtersen JH. Psychosocial risk assessment: French validation of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ). Scand J Public Health. 2012;40(5):482-90. [DOI] [PMID]
46. Baka Ł, Prusik M, Pejtersen JH, Grala K. Full evaluation of the psychometric properties of COPSOQ II. One-year longitudinal study on Polish human service staff. PLoS One. 2022;17(1):e0262266. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
47. Martinez MC, do Rosário Dias de Oliveira Latorre M, Fischer FM. A cohort study of psychosocial work stressors on work ability among Brazilian hospital workers. Am J Ind Med. 2015;58(7):795-806. [DOI] [PMID]
48. Bethge M, Radoschewski FM. Physical and psychosocial work stressors, health-related control beliefs and work ability: cross-sectional findings from the German Sociomedical Panel of Employees. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2010;83(3):241-50. [DOI] [PMID]
49. Leijon O, Balliu N, Lundin A, Vaez M, Kjellberg K, Hemmingsson T. Effects of psychosocial work factors and psychological distress on self‐assessed work ability: A 7-year follow-up in a general working population. Am J Ind Med. 2017;60(1):121-30. [DOI] [PMID]
50. Berthelsen H, Hakanen JJ, Westerlund H. Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire - A validation study using the Job Demand-Resources model. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0196450. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
51. Cotrim T, da Silva CF, Amaral V, Bem-Haja P, Pereira A. Work ability and psychosocial factors in healthcare settings: Results from a national study. In: Duffy V, Lightner N, (eds). Advances in Human Aspects of Healthcare and Medicine. 2021;13:32. [DOI]
52. Ferreira AP. Work Ability and Psychosocial Factors among Hairdressers Workers, rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Cienc Trab. 2015;17(52). [DOI]
53. Ghaddar A, Ronda E, Nolasco A. Work ability, psychosocial hazards and work experience in prison environments. Occup Med. 2011;61(7):503-8. [DOI] [PMID]
54. Mache S, Vitzthum K, Groneberg DA. High work ability and performance in psychiatric health care services: Associations with organizational, individual and contextual factors. Neurol Psychiatry Brain Res. 2015;21(2):88-95. [DOI]
55. Harling M, Schablon A, Nienhaus A. Validation of the German version of the Nurse-Work Instability Scale: baseline survey findings of a prospective study of a cohort of geriatric care workers. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2013;8(1):33. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
56. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample study. J Organ Behav. 2004;25(3):293-315. [DOI]
57. Airila A, Hakanen JJ, Schaufeli WB, Luukkonen R, Punakallio A, Lusa S. Are job and personal resources associated with work ability 10 years later? The mediating role of work engagement. Work Stress. 2014;28(1):87-105. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
