Article

The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire—a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment

The National Institute of Occupational Health, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health (Impact Factor: 3.1). 01/2006; 31(6):438-49. DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.948
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this article is to present the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ), a questionnaire developed in three different lengths for assessing psychosocial factors at work, stress, and the well-being of employees and some personality factors. The purpose of the COPSOQ concept is to improve and facilitate research, as well as practical interventions at workplaces.
The development of the questionnaire was based on a survey of a representative sample of 1858 Danish employees aged 20-59 years. The response rate was 62%; 49% were women. Altogether 145 questions from some international and Danish questionnaires and 20 self-developed questions were tested with factor analyses, analyses of internal reliability, and analyses of response patterns.
The analyses resulted in a long research version of the questionnaire with 141 questions and 30 dimensions, a medium-length version for work environment professionals with 95 questions and 26 dimensions, and a short version for workplaces with 44 questions and 8 dimensions. Most of the scales have good reliability, and there seems to be very little overlap between the scales. A novel feature of the COPSOQ is the development of five different scales on demands at work.
The COPSOQ concept is a valid and reliable tool for workplace surveys, analytic research, interventions, and international comparisons. The questionnaire seems to be comprehensive and to include most of the relevant dimensions according to several important theories on psychosocial factors at work. The three versions facilitate communication between researchers, work environment professionals, and workplaces.

3 Followers
 · 
298 Views
  • Source
    • "In the study, the valid and relevant short version of COPSOQ instrument was jointly used to assess psychosocial stress at work. This instrument covers the broad construct of work-related psychological factors by using a multidimensional concept including seven major theories in occupational health psychology (Kristensen et al., 2005). The COPSOQ is applicable in all sectors of the labor market and makes national and international comparisons possible. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Suboptimal health status (SHS) has become a new public health challenge in China. This study investigated whether high SHS is associated with psychosocial stress, changes in cortisol level and/or glucocorticoid receptor (GR) isoform expression. Three hundred and eighty-six workers employed in three companies in Beijing were recruited. The SHS score was derived from data collection in the SHS questionnaire (SHSQ-25). The short standard version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) was used to assess job-related psychosocial stress. The mean value of the five scales of COPSOQ and distribution of plasma cortisol and mRNA expression of GRα/GRβ between the high level of SHS group and the low level of SHS group were compared using a general linear model procedure. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to analyze the effect of psychosocial stress on SHS. We identified three factors which were predictive of SHS, including 'demands at work', 'interpersonal relations and leadership' and 'insecurity at work'. Significantly higher levels of plasma cortisol and GRβ/GRα mRNA ratio were observed among the high SHS group. High level of SHS is associated with decreased mRNA expression of GRα. The present study confirmed the association between chronic psychosocial stress and SHS, indicating that improving the psychosocial work environment may reduce SHS and then prevent chronic diseases effectively.
    Stress (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 12/2014; 18(1):1-24. DOI:10.3109/10253890.2014.999233 · 3.46 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Work-related stress, and more general stress, is a subjective phenomenon and, consequently, the involvement of a large part of the employees in its assessment appears as an outstanding issue (Barling et al., 2005; Giorgi, 2010). In this context, several strategies have been used to assess employees' subjective experience of workrelated stress, mainly through questionnaires: the Occupational Stress Indicator (Cooper et al., 1988), the Pressure Management Indicator (Williams and Cooper, 1998), the Job Content Questionnaire (Karasek et al., 1998), the Health and Safety Executive's Management Standards (Edwards et al., 2008), the Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) (Siegrist et al., 1997), the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) (Kristensen et al., 2005) and the HSE Indicator Tool (HSE, 2004). However, a considerable limitation of the questionnaires may be the overconfidence of self-reports (Spector, 1994). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study shows detailed information about the reliability and validity of the psychosocial risk scale included in the Stress Questionnaire (SQ) developed by our research group. The primary purpose of this work is to test the factor structure of the psychosocial risk scale through a first-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using a large pooled dataset obtained from a population of 2026 employees of 15 Italian medium-large companies. Data were collected by a team of researchers who examined demographic variables, work-related stress, workplace bullying, mental health and other constructs. In addition to these substantive issues, the survey was designed to better understand response bias. After the evaluation of the results we conclude that the psychosocial risk scale reported a satisfactory reliability and validity. In addition, it allowed a careful measurement of work related stress, considering both leader's and follower's perspectives.
    Science of The Total Environment 10/2014; 502C:673-679. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.09.069 · 4.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Values were considered to be missing if the respondent had left any of the questions of the scale unanswered. Internal reliability of the scales was checked via Exploratory Factor Analysis with direct Oblimin oblique rotation and maximum likelihood extraction method for large groups of psychosocial dimensions, involving five different factor analyses consistent with the analysis performed by Danish authors of COPSOQ I and II [Kristensen et al., 2005a; Pejtersen et al., 2010], the Spanish COPSOQ-Istas21and otherinstruments like the EPRES [Vives et al., 2010] that was developed on the basis of the same Spanish Survey of Psychosocial Risks. Factors were retained based on three criteria: Eigenvalue greater than 1, analysis of the scree plot, and interpretability. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To describe the second version of the Spanish Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire and to present evidence of its validity and reliability. The original Danish long COPSOQ II questionnaire was adapted to the labor market, cultural, and linguistic setting of Spain and included in the 2010 Spanish Psychosocial Risks Survey. Analysis involved the assessment of psychometric characteristics and associations among psychosocial scales and health scales. Medium and short versions were derived from the long one. The long questionnaire was configured with 24 dimensions (92 items); medium-length questionnaire with 20 dimensions (69 items); and short questionnaire with 14 dimensions (28 items). All scales showed acceptable reliability and concordance between versions. Most associations among psychosocial scales and Mental Health, Stress, and Burnout scales were in the expected direction, except the scale of Influence, that showed some incongruent associations. Results support the validity and reliability of Spanish COPSOQ II questionnaires as tools for psychosocial risk assessment at the workplace, however, better scales should be developed specially for the dimension of Influence. Am. J. Ind. Med. 9999:1-11, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    American Journal of Industrial Medicine 01/2014; 57(1). DOI:10.1002/ajim.22238 · 1.59 Impact Factor
Show more