Display options
Cite
Mauss D, Herr RM, Theorell T, et al. Validating the Demand Control Support Questionnaire among white-collar employees in Switzerland and the United States. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2018;13:7doi: 10.1186/s12995-018-0188-7.
Mauss, D., Herr, R. M., Theorell, T., Angerer, P., & Li, J. (2018). Validating the Demand Control Support Questionnaire among white-collar employees in Switzerland and the United States. Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 137. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-018-0188-7
Mauss, Daniel, et al. "Validating the Demand Control Support Questionnaire among white-collar employees in Switzerland and the United States." Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) vol. 13 (2018): 7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-018-0188-7
Mauss D, Herr RM, Theorell T, Angerer P, Li J. Validating the Demand Control Support Questionnaire among white-collar employees in Switzerland and the United States. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2018 Feb 13;13:7. doi: 10.1186/s12995-018-0188-7. eCollection 2018. PMID: 29449870; PMCID: PMC5812053.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Occup Med Toxicol. 2018 Feb 13;13:7. doi: 10.1186/s12995-018-0188-7. eCollection 2018.

Validating the Demand Control Support Questionnaire among white-collar employees in Switzerland and the United States.

Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)

Daniel Mauss, Raphael M Herr, Töres Theorell, Peter Angerer, Jian Li

Affiliations

  1. 1Mannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Ludolf-Krehl-Str. 7-11, D-68167 Mannheim, Germany.
  2. 2Institute for Stress Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
  3. 3Institute of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Centre for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.

PMID: 29449870 PMCID: PMC5812053 DOI: 10.1186/s12995-018-0188-7

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Demand Control Support Questionnaire (DCSQ) is an established self-reported tool to measure a stressful work environment. Validated German and English versions are however currently missing. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate the psychometric properties of German and English versions of the DCSQ among white-collar employees in Switzerland and the US.

METHODS: This cross-sectional study was carried out on 499 employees in Switzerland and 411 in the US, respectively. The 17-item DCSQ with three scales assessed psychosocial stress at work (psychological demands, decision latitude, and social support at work). Depressive symptoms were measured by the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire. Cronbach's α and item-total correlations tested the scale reliability (internal consistency). Construct validity of the questionnaire was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Logistic regressions estimated associations of each scale and job strain with depressive symptoms (criterion validity).

RESULTS: In both samples, all DCSQ scales presented satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's α ≥ 0.72; item-total correlations ≥ 0.33), and EFA showed the 17 items loading on three factors, which is in line with the theoretically assumed structure of the DCSQ construct. Moreover, all three scales as well as high job strain were significantly associated with depressive symptoms. The associations were stronger in the US sample.

CONCLUSIONS: The German and the English versions of the DCSQ seem to be reliable and valid instruments to measure psychosocial stress based on the job demand-control-support model in the workplace of white-collar employees in Switzerland and the US.

Keywords: Demand-control-support model; Depressive symptoms; Job strain; Psychosocial stress; Validation

Conflict of interest statement

Informed consent was given by each participant. Data collection and study procedure was approved by the corporate data protection officer and by the Ethical Committee of the Bavarian State Chamber of

References

  1. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2001 Aug;189(8):498-506 - PubMed
  2. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2007 Jul-Sep;13(3):268-80 - PubMed
  3. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2008 Oct;82(1):1-12 - PubMed
  4. Eur J Public Health. 2016 Jun;26(3):470-7 - PubMed
  5. Psychol Med. 2017 Jun;47(8):1342-1356 - PubMed
  6. Rev Saude Publica. 2004 Apr;38(2):164-71 - PubMed
  7. BMC Public Health. 2004 Dec 07;4:59 - PubMed
  8. Am J Public Health. 1988 Oct;78(10):1336-42 - PubMed
  9. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-42 - PubMed
  10. Am J Public Health. 2012 Dec;102(12 ):2360-6 - PubMed
  11. J Occup Health Psychol. 1998 Oct;3(4):322-55 - PubMed
  12. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Jun 30;14 (7):null - PubMed
  13. BMC Public Health. 2015 Aug 01;15:738 - PubMed
  14. Med Care. 2003 Nov;41(11):1284-92 - PubMed
  15. Int J Health Serv. 2016 Oct;46(4):656-92 - PubMed
  16. PLoS One. 2013 Aug 12;8(8):e70541 - PubMed
  17. Global Health. 2012 Jul 20;8:27 - PubMed
  18. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1988 Jun;14(3):189-96 - PubMed
  19. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2010 Apr;83(4):407-16 - PubMed
  20. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010 Sep;36(5):422-9 - PubMed
  21. Psychol Med. 2016 Mar;46(4):683-97 - PubMed
  22. Scand J Public Health. 2005;33(3):166-74 - PubMed
  23. BMC Public Health. 2013 Nov 21;13:1086 - PubMed
  24. Women Health. 1988;14(2):3-26 - PubMed
  25. Ind Health. 2012;50(6):467-75 - PubMed

Publication Types