首页> 外文期刊>International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health. >VALIDITY TEST OF THE IPD-WORK CONSORTIUM APPROACH FOR CREATING COMPARABLE JOB STRAIN GROUPS BETWEEN JOB CONTENT QUESTIONNAIRE AND DEMAND-CONTROL QUESTIONNAIRE
【24h】

VALIDITY TEST OF THE IPD-WORK CONSORTIUM APPROACH FOR CREATING COMPARABLE JOB STRAIN GROUPS BETWEEN JOB CONTENT QUESTIONNAIRE AND DEMAND-CONTROL QUESTIONNAIRE

机译:用于创建作业内容问卷和需求控制问卷之间可比较的作业应变组的IPD-耗材耗材方法的有效性测试

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Objectives: This study aims to test the validity of the IPD-Work Consortium approach for creating comparable job strain groups between the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) and the Demand-Control Questionnaire (DCQ). Material and Methods: A random population sample (N = 682) of all middle-aged Malmo males and females was given a questionnaire with the 14-item JCQ and 11-item DCQ for the job control and job demands. The JCQ job control and job demands scores were calculated in 3 different ways: using the 14-item JCQ standard scale formulas (method 1); dropping 3 job control items and using the 11-item JCQ standard scale formulas with additional scale weights (method 2); and the approach of the IPD Group (method 3), dropping 3 job control items, but using the simple 11-item summation-based scale formulas. The high job strain was defined as a combination of high demands and low control. Results: Between the 2 questionnaires, false negatives for the high job strain were much greater than false positives (37-49% vs. 7-13%). When the method 3 was applied, the sensitivity of the JCQ for the high job strain against the DCQ was lowest (0.51 vs. 0.60-0.63 when the methods 1 and 2 were applied), although the specificity was highest (0.93 vs. 0.87-0.89 when the methods 1 and 2 were applied). The prevalence of the high job strain with the JCQ (the method 3 was applied) was considerably lower (4-7%) than with the JCQ (the methods 1 and 2 were applied) and the DCQ. The number of congruent cases for the high job strain between the 2 questionnaires was smallest when the method 3 was applied. Conclusions: The IPD-Work Consortium approach showed 2 major weaknesses to be used for epidemiological studies on the high job strain and health outcomes as compared to the standard JCQ methods: the greater misclassification of the high job strain and lower prevalence of the high job strain.
机译:目的:本研究旨在检验IPD-工作联盟方法在创建工作内容调查表(JCQ)和需求控制调查表(DCQ)之间可比较的工作压力小组时的有效性。材料和方法:随机抽取所有马尔摩中年男女样本(N = 682),进行问卷调查,包括14个项目的JCQ和11个项目的DCQ,以控制工作和工作需求。 JCQ的工作控制和工作要求分数是通过3种不同的方式计算的:使用14个项目的JCQ标准比例公式(方法1);删除3个工作控制项目,并使用11个项目的JCQ标准比例尺公式和附加比例尺权重(方法2);和IPD小组的方法(方法3),删除3个工作控制项,但使用简单的基于11个项目的总和的规模公式。高工作压力被定义为高要求和低控制的结合。结果:在两份问卷中,高工作压力的假阴性远远大于假阳性(37-49%比7-13%)。当应用方法3时,JCQ对高工作应变对DCQ的灵敏度最低(应用方法1和方法2时为0.51对0.60-0.63),尽管特异性最高(0.93对0.87-。当应用方法1和2时为0.89)。与使用JCQ(应用方法1和2)和DCQ相比,使用JCQ(应用方法3)的高工作应变的患病率(4-7%)要低得多。当使用方法3时,两份问卷之间的高工作压力的全案数最少。结论:与标准JCQ方法相比,IPD-Work联盟方法显示出用于高工作压力和健康结果的流行病学研究有两个主要弱点:高工作压力的错误分类更大,高工作压力的患病率更低。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号