Author
Listed:
- Siegrist, Johannes
- Starke, Dagmar
- Chandola, Tarani
- Godin, Isabelle
- Marmot, Michael
- Niedhammer, Isabelle
- Peter, Richard
Abstract
Using comparative data from five countries, this study investigates the psychometric properties of the effort-reward imbalance (ERI) at work model. In this model, chronic work-related stress is identified as non-reciprocity or imbalance between high efforts spent and low rewards received. Health-adverse effects of this imbalance were documented in several prospective and cross-sectional investigations. The internal consistency, discriminant validity and factorial structure of 'effort', 'reward', and 'overcommitment' scales are evaluated, using confirmatory factor analysis. Moreover, content (or external) validity is explored with respect to a measure of self-reported health. Data for the analysis is derived from epidemiologic studies conducted in five European countries: the Somstress Study (Belgium; n=3796), the GAZEL-Cohort Study (France; n=10,174), the WOLF-Norrland Study (Sweden; n=960), the Whitehall II Study (UK; n=3697) and the Public Transport Employees Study (Germany; n=316). Internal consistency of the scales was satisfactory in all samples, and the factorial structure of the scales was consistently confirmed (all goodness of fit measures were >0.92). Moreover, in 12 of 14 analyses, significantly elevated odds ratios of poor health were observed in employees scoring high on the ERI scales. In conclusion, a psychometrically well-justified measure of work-related stress (ERI) grounded in sociological theory is available for comparative socioepidemiologic investigations. In the light of the importance of work for adult health such investigations are crucial in advanced societies within and beyond Europe.
Suggested Citation
Siegrist, Johannes & Starke, Dagmar & Chandola, Tarani & Godin, Isabelle & Marmot, Michael & Niedhammer, Isabelle & Peter, Richard, 2004.
"The measurement of effort-reward imbalance at work: European comparisons,"
Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(8), pages 1483-1499, April.
Handle:
RePEc:eee:socmed:v:58:y:2004:i:8:p:1483-1499
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:58:y:2004:i:8:p:1483-1499. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.