Clausen E-Appendix
Clausen E-Appendix
Clausen E-Appendix
2: Correspondence to: Thomas Clausen, National Research Centre for the Working
Environment, Lersø Parkalle 105, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. Email: [email protected]
Contents
Contents ........................................................................................................................................ 1
e-Appendix 1: Overview of dimensions and items in the Danish Psychosocial Work
Environment Questionnaire (DPQ) ............................................................................................... 2
e-Appendix 2: Translation of the Danish Psychosocial Work Environment Questionnaire (DPQ)
..................................................................................................................................................... 13
e-Appendix 3: List of 20 international scientific journals that were scanned to identify relevant
scales and items for the Danish Psychosocial Work Environment Questionnaire (DPQ) ........... 14
e-Appendix 4: List of relevant psychosocial work environment questionnaires that were
scanned to identify relevant scales and items for the Danish Psychosocial Work Environment
Questionnaire (DPQ) ................................................................................................................... 15
e-Appendix 5: List of occupational sectors that were covered in the focus group interviews
conducted during phase 1 of the development process ............................................................ 21
e-Appendix 6: Analysis of non-response in the 14 job groups by sex and age ........................... 23
e-Appendix 7: Assessment of internal consistency reliability: Job group-specific Cronbach’s
alpha values for 26 multi-item scales with three or more items ................................................ 25
e-Appendix 8: Assessment of construct validity: Job group-specific means on 32 measures of
psychosocial working conditions (4 single items and 28 multi-item scales with two or more
items)........................................................................................................................................... 29
e-Appendix 9: Assessment of factorial validity: Results from job group-specific confirmatory
factor analyses (CFA) for 22 multi-item scales with four or more items .................................... 46
e-Appendix 10: Investigation of cross-loadings in the domains Work organization and job
content and Demands at work: Results from job group-specific confirmatory factor analyses
(CFA) for multi-item scales in the two domains .......................................................................... 68
1
e-Appendix 1: Overview of dimensions and items in the Danish
Psychosocial Work Environment Questionnaire (DPQ)
2
1.6 Work without boundaries
1. How often are you 'on-call' to be available for work outside of your normal
working hours? (from ‘Work Environment and Health’-questionnaire (2))
2. How often do you work at home outside of your normal working hours, e.g. in the
evening, during weekends or during holidays?
3. How often do you work on days when you are off from work, e.g. on weekends,
holidays or vacations?
4. How often does your job require you to work overtime, i.e. beyond your agreed or
expected working hours? (Adapted from ‘Work Environment and Health’-
questionnaire (2))
Response options: “Always”; “Often”; “Sometimes”; “Rarely”; “Never/almost never”
3
2.4 Role clarity
1 Are there clear goals for your work tasks? (from COPSOQ-II (1))
2 Do you know exactly what is expected of you at work? (from COPSOQ-II (1))
3 Do you know when you have carried out your job well?
4 Do you know exactly what your responsibilities are? (from COPSOQ-II (1))
Response options: “To a very large extent”; “To a large extent”; “Somewhat”; “To a small
extent”; “To a very small extent”
2.6 Predictability
1 Do you receive timely information about e.g. important decisions, changes and
plans for the future at your place of work? (from COPSOQ-II (1))
2 Are you informed well in advance if changes are made to your work tasks?
3 Are you informed well in advance of changes to whom you will be working with?
4 Are you informed well in advance if there are changes to your working hours?
Response options for Q1: “To a very large extent”; “To a large extent”; “Somewhat”; “To a
small extent”; “To a very small extent”. Response options for Q2-4: “Always”; “Often”;
“Sometimes”; “Rarely”; “Never/almost never”
4
Domain: Interpersonal relations: cooperation and leadership
3.1 Social support from colleagues
1 Can you get practical help with your work from colleagues if you need it? (Adapted
from QPS-Nordic (3))
2 Can you get advice and guidance from your colleagues if you need it?
3 Can you talk to your colleagues about it if you experience difficulties at work?
4 Are you and your colleagues attentive to each other's wellbeing?
Response options: “To a very large extent”; “To a large extent”; “Somewhat”; “To a small
extent”; “To a very small extent”
5
3.5 Quality of leadership
1 Does your immediate supervisor give high priority to the wellbeing of employees
in the workplace? (Adapted from COPSOQ-II (1))
2 Is your immediate supervisor good at communicating clear goals for the work of
you and your colleagues?
3 Is your immediate supervisor good at resolving conflicts? (Adapted from COPSOQ-
II (1))
4 Is your immediate supervisor good at motivating the employees?
Response options: “To a very large extent”; “To a large extent”; “Somewhat”; “To a small
extent”; “To a very small extent”
6
3.9 Changes in the workplace
Filter question:
1. Have any major changes been implemented at your workplace during the last two
years (e.g. a restructuring of the workplace or layoffs)?
Response options: “Yes, several times”; “Yes, one time”; “No”
3.10 Recognition
1 Are your efforts recognized and appreciated at your place of work? (Adapted from
COPSOQ-II (1))
Response options: “To a very large extent”; “To a large extent”; “Somewhat”; “To a small
extent”; “To a very small extent”
4.2 Violence
1. Have you been exposed to work-related physical violence during the last 12 months??
(Adapted from COPSOQ-II (1))
Response options: “Yes, daily or almost daily”; “Yes, weekly”; “Yes, monthly”; “Yes,
occasionally”; “No”
7
4.3 Bullying
1. Have you been exposed to bullying in your current job during the last 12 months?
(Bullying takes place when a person repeatedly and over an extended period of
time is exposed to unpleasant or degrading treatment. For bullying to take place
the person who is bullied must find it difficult to defend him- or herself.) (Adapted
from COPSOQ-II (1))
Response options: “Yes, daily or almost daily”; “Yes, weekly”; “Yes, monthly”; “Yes,
occasionally”; “No”
4.5 Discrimination
1. Have you within the last 12 months experienced discrimination or been treated poorly
due to e.g. your sex, age, ethnicity, religion, health or sexual orientation?
Response options: “Yes, daily or almost daily”; “Yes, weekly”; “Yes, monthly”; “Yes,
occasionally”; “No”
4.6 Harassment
1. Have you within the last 12 months experienced work-related harassment by
customers, clients, patients, pupils or relatives?
(Harassment occurs when a person is exposed to offensive acts, threats or
persecution from persons that one is in contact with through one's job, e.g.
customers, clients, patients, pupils or their relatives, but not colleagues,
superiors or subordinates)
Response options: “Yes, daily or almost daily”; “Yes, weekly”; “Yes, monthly”; “Yes,
occasionally”; “No”
8
Response options: “At my workplace”; “Outside of my workplace, e.g. at home or in town”;
“Via social media”; “By telephone, SMS, email or letter”; “Other”
5.3 Work engagement (all items are from the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) (8))
1. At my work, I feel bursting with energy
2. I am enthusiastic about my job
3. I feel happy when I am working intensely
4. At my job, I feel strong and vigorous
5. I am proud of the work that I do
6. I am immersed in my work
7. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work
8. My job inspires me
9. I get carried away when I am working
Response options: “Never”; “Almost never”; “Rarely”; “Sometimes”; “Often”; “Very often”;
“Always”
9
5.5 Self-reported stress
1. How often have you felt stressed within that last two weeks? (from ‘Work
Environment and Health’-questionnaire (2))
Response options: “All the time”; “Often”; “Sometimes”; “Rarely”; “Never”
If “All the time”, “Often”, “Sometimes”, or “Rarely”, the following questions should be asked:
10
Coding of items and multi-item scales
With the exception of the six dimensions measured within the domain Conflicts in the
workplace, all dimensions (scales and single items) were measured by scales ranging from 0 to
100. Scale scores were calculated by recoding item scores from 0 to 100 and averaging the
scores for items within each scale. For each scale, the score of 100 indicates the highest level
of the measured dimension.
Response options for items with five-point Likert scales were scored as follows:
Response option Score
To a very large extent // Always 100
To a large extent // Often 75
Somewhat // Sometimes 50
To a small extent // Rarely 25
To a very small extent // Never/almost never 0
Response options for items in the scale ‘Work engagement’ were scored as follows:
Response option Score
Never 0.0
Almost never 16.7
Rarely 33.3
Sometimes 50.0
Often 66.7
Very often 83.3
Always 100.0
Response options for the two dimensions Job satisfaction and Overall assessment of the
psychosocial work environment were scored on a scale from 0 to 10. To align scores on these
two dimensions with a scale ranging from 0 to 100, responses on the original response scale
were multiplied with 10.
In multi-item scales we added the score for the chosen response option for each item and
divided the sum score with the number of items in the multi-item scale. In cases where
respondents had only responded to some of the items making up a given scale, scales values
were calculated if the respondent had responded to half of the items or more.
References
(1) Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TS, Borg V, Bjorner JB. The second version of the Copenhagen
Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scand J Public Health 2010; 38:8-24.
(4) Morgeson FP, Humphrey SE. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and
validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. J
Appl Psychol 2006; 91(6):1321-1339.
(5) Sasser M, Sørensen O. Doing a good job - the effect of primary task quality on well-
being and job satisfaction. Hum Factor Ergon Man 2016; 26(3):323-336.
(6) Thorsen SV, Jensen PH, Bjorner JB. Psychosocial work environment and retirement
age: a prospective study of 1876 senior employees. Int Arch Occup Environ Health
2016; 89(6):891-900.
12
e-Appendix 2: Translation of the Danish Psychosocial Work Environment
Questionnaire (DPQ)
The DPQ was translated from Danish into English using the following procedure. First, the
items and names of the individual dimensions were translated from Danish into English by a
native Danish speaking member of the research team. This translation was successively
commented on by two native English speaking researchers who also master the Danish
language. Finally, the revised English translation of the DPQ was used in five qualitative
interviews with five employed individuals from the UK, to test the applicability of the questions
in a work-life context among native English speakers. The results from these interviews were
used to finalize the translation of the DPQ from Danish into English. All members of the Danish
research team read and discussed the final translation of the DPQ into English. As all members
of the research team were fluent English speakers, it was deemed that a formal back-
translation of the DPQ was not necessary.
Accordingly, the English version of the DPQ presented in e-Appendix 1 represents the final
English version of the DPQ that is suitable for research in English-speaking study populations,
and for further translations from English into other languages.
13
e-Appendix 3: List of 20 international scientific journals that were
scanned to identify relevant scales and items for the Danish Psychosocial
Work Environment Questionnaire (DPQ)
Human Relations
14
e-Appendix 4: List of relevant psychosocial work environment
questionnaires that were scanned to identify relevant scales and items
for the Danish Psychosocial Work Environment Questionnaire (DPQ)
1. COPSOQ-II (1)
2. Work Environment and Health (2)
3. Danish National Work Environment Survey (DANES) (3)
4. QPS-Nordic (4)
5. Effort-Reward imbalance questionnaire (5)
6. Job Content Questionnaire (6)
7. Organizational justice (7)
8. Workplace social capital (8)
9. Workplace social capital (9)
10. Illegitimate job tasks (10)
11. NISOH Health Hazard Evaluation (11)
12. Quantitative Workload Inventory, QWI (12)
13. Questionnaire on the experience and assessment of work (QEEW) (13)
14. Role Overload Scale Items (14)
15. Short Inventory Psychological Hazards (SIMPH) (15)
16. Work overload scale (16)
15
30. Understanding of Events, Predictability of Events, and Control Over One's Work
Environment (30)
31. Job Crafting Scale (31)
32. Refining Lodahl and Kejner’s Job Involvement Scale (32)
33. Measurement of some work attitudes (33)
34. Organizational Commitment Scale (34)
35. Supervisory and Organizational commitment (35)
36. Reciprocation of perceived organizational support (36)
37. Job Ambiguity Items (37)
38. Empowerment Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ) items (38)
39. Empowering Leadership (39)
40. Item Content for Leader-Member Exchange (LMX-7 and SLMX-7) (40)
41. Leadership behavior (41)
42. Measure of LMX (LMX 7) (42)
43. Psychological Contract Breach (43)
44. Job satisfaction survey (44)
45. Intragroup Trust, Tactics, and Conflict Items (45)
46. Distributive, interactional, and informational justice (46)
47. Interactional Justice (47)
48. Diversity Perception Scale (48)
49. Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) (49;50)
50. Primary Task Quality (51)
References
(1) Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TS, Borg V, Bjorner JB. The second version of Copenhagen
Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQII). Scand J Public Health 2010; 38(suppl 3):8-24.
(3) Thorsen SV, Jensen PH, Bjorner JB. Psychosocial work environment and retirement
age: a prospective study of 1876 senior employees. Int Arch Occup Environ Health
2016; 89(6):891-900.
16
(4) Wännström I, Peterson U, Åsberg M, Nygren A, Gustavsson JP. Psychometric
properties of scales in the General Nordic Questionnaire for Psychological and Social
Factors at Work (QPS): confirmatory factor analysis and prediction of certified long-
term sickness absence. Scand J Psychol 2009; 50(3):231-244.
(6) Karasek RA, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman ILD, Bongers PM, Amick III BC. The Job
Content Questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative
assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol 1998; 3(4):322-
355.
(10) Semmer NK, Tschan F, Meier L, Facchin S, Jacobshagen N. Illegitimate tasks and
counterproductive work behavior. Appl Psychol Int Rev 2010; 59(1):70-96.
(11) Wiegand D, Chen P, Hurrell J, Jex S, Nakata A, Nigam JA et al. A consensus method for
updating psychosocial measures used in NIOSH health hazard evaluations. J Occup
Environ Med 2012; 55(12):350-355.
(12) Spector PE, Jex SM. Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and
strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale,
Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. J Occup Health
Psychol 1998; 3(4):356-367.
(13) van Veldhoven M, Meijman T. De Vragenlijst Beoordeling en Beleving van het Werk [
NIA: Amsterdam; 1994.
(14) Cammann CFM, Jenkins D, Klesh J. Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of
organizational members. In: Seashore S, Lawler E, Mirvis P, Cammann C, editors.
Assessming organizational change: A guide to mehtods, measures and practices. New
York: Wiley; 1983. 84.
(15) Notelaers G, De Witte H, van Veldhoven M, Vermunt JK. Construction and validation of
the Short Inventory to monitor Psychosocial Hazards. Medecine du Travail &
Ergonomie 2007; XLIV:11-17.
17
(16) Pareek BP, Mehta G, Bhartiya HC, Dev PK. Response of Developing Mouse-Liver
Irradiated Inutero and Its Modification by 2-Mercaptopropionylglycine. Acta Radiol
Onc 1983; 22(1):55-60.
(17) Prumper J, Hartmannsgruber K, Frese M. Kfza - A Short Questionnaire for Job Analysis.
Zeitschrift fur Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie 1995; 39(3):125-132.
(18) Morgeson FP, Humphrey SE. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and
validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. J
Appl Psychol 2006; 91(6):1321-1339.
(19) Diefendorff JM, Croyle MH, Gosserand RH. The dimensionality and antecedents of
emotional labor strategies. J Vocat Behav 2005; 66(2):339-357.
(20) Diefendorff JM, Richard EM. Antecedents and consequences of emotional display rule
perceptions. J Appl Psychol 2003; 88(2):284-294.
(21) Zapf D, Vogt C, Seifert C, Mertini H, Isic A. Emotion work as a source of stress: The
concept and development of an instrument. Eur J Work Organ Psy 1999; 8(3):371-400.
(23) Brotheridge CM, Lee RT. Development and validation of the emotional labour scale. J
of Occup Organ Psych 2003; 76:365-379.
(24) Zhang X, Bartol KM. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The
influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement. Acad Manage J 2010; 53(1):107-128.
(25) Hackman JR, Oldham GR. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman;
1980.
(26) Sims HP, Szilagyi AD, Keller RT. Measurement of Job Characteristics. Acad Manage J
1976; 19(2):195-212.
(28) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Quality of Worklife
Questionnaire. 2013. Retrieved at
http://www.cdc.gov.niosh/topics/stress/qwlquest.html.
(29) National Insitute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). NIOSH Generic Job
Stress Questionnaire. 2013. Retrieved at
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/workorg/detail088.html.
(30) Tetrick LE, Larocco JM. Understanding, Prediction, and Control As Moderators of the
Relationships Between Perceived Stress, Satisfaction, and Psychological Well-Being. J
Appl Psychol 1987; 72(4):538-543.
(31) Tims M, Bakker AB, Derks D. Development and validation of the job crafting scale. J
Vocat Behav 2012; 80(1):173-186.
18
(32) Reeve CL, Smith CS. Refining Lodahl and Kejner's Job Involvement Scale with a
convergent evidence approach: Applying multiple methods to multiple samples. Organ
Res Methods 2000; 4(2):91-111.
(33) Warr P, Cook J, Wall T. Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and
aspects of psychological well-being. J Occup Psychol 1979; 52(2):129-148.
(34) Meyer JP, Allen NJ. Testing the Side-Bet Theory of Organizational Commitment - Some
Methodological Considerations. J Appl Psychol 1984; 69(3):372-378.
(35) Cheng BS, Jiang DY, Riley JH. Organizational commitment, supervisory commitment,
and employee outcomes in the Chinese context: proximal hypothesis or global
hypothesis? J Organ Behav 2003; 24(3):313-334.
(37) Breaugh JA, Colihan JP. Measuring facets of job ambiguity: Construct validity evidence.
J Appl Psychol 1994; 79(2):191-202.
(38) Arnold JA, Arad S, Rhoades JA, Drasgow F. The empowering leadership questionnaire:
the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. J Organ
Behav 2000; 21(3):249-269.
(39) Ahearne M, Mathieu J, Rapp A. To empower or not to empower your sales force? An
empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on
customer satisfaction and performance. J Appl Psychol 2005; 90(5):945-955.
(40) Scandura TA, Schriesheim CA. Leader-Member Exchange and Supervisor Career
Mentoring As Complementary Constructs in Leadership Research. Acad Manage J
1994; 37(6):1588-1602.
(43) Robinson SL, Morrison EW. The development of psychological contract breach and
violation: a longitudinal study. J Organ Behav 2000; 21(5):525-546.
(44) Spector PE. Job Satisfaction Survey. 1994. Tampa, FL, University of South Florida.
(45) Simons TL, Peterson RS. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management
teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. J Appl Psychol 2000; 85(1):102-111.
19
(47) Donovan MA, Drasgow F, Munson LJ. The Perceptions of Fair Interpersonal Treatment
scale: Development and validation of a measure of interpersonal treatment in the
workplace. J Appl Psychol 1998; 83(5):683-692.
(48) Mor Barak ME, Cherin DA, Berkman S. Organizational and Personal Dimensions in
Diversity Climate: Ethnic and Gender Differences in Employee Perceptions. J Appl
Behav Sci 1998; 34(1):82-104.
(51) Sasser M, Sørensen O. Doing a good job - the effect of primary task quality on well-
being and job satisfaction. Hum Factors Ergon Man 2016; 26(3):323-336.
20
e-Appendix 5: List of occupational sectors that were covered in the focus
group interviews conducted during phase 1 of the development process
Work in Building and Construction (Interview with researcher who conducted field
studies at building sites)
Work in Trade, Finance and Office (Employees in a super market)
Work in Trade, Finance and Office (Employees in a bank)
Work in Trade, Finance and Office (Employees in a Book store)
Work in Industry (Employees in a factory in the graphical industry)
Transport, Tourism, Service and Agricultural production (Employees in a hotel)
Transport, Tourism, Service and Agricultural production (Employees in a bus drivers)
Transport, Tourism, Service and Agricultural production (Employees in a gardening
department in a municipality)
Transport, Tourism, Service and Agricultural production (Employees in a slaughter
house)
Transport, Tourism, Service and Agricultural production (Employees in a postal service)
Welfare and Public administration (Employees in an institution for professional
education: education of teachers)
Welfare and Public administration (Employees in an institution for professional
education: education of nurses)
Welfare and Public administration (Employees in a primary school: teachers)
Welfare and Public administration (Employees in a police department)
Welfare and Public administration (Employees in a psychiatric hospital)
Welfare and Public administration (Employees in a department in the municipal
administration)
Procedure
Once the contact between the research team and the workplace had been established, the
contact person at the workplace was asked to recruit a number of informants to participate in
the interview. In the interviews the number of informants varied between one and five
persons. Four interviews were conducted with one informant and the remaining 12 interviews
21
were conducted as focus group interviews. In the 16 workplaces employees volunteered to
participate in the interviews, which implies that the research team had no influence on the
selection of participants. Two members of the research team were present at all interviews.
This data collection was performed through semi-structured interviews on the basis of an
interview guide. The interview guide prompted the informants using the following questions:
Introductory question:
What is a ‘good’ psychosocial work environment for you? And what is a ‘bad’ psychosocial
Follow-up questions:
You mentioned that [e.g. cooperation with colleagues] is important for you in your work.
workplace, Influence at work, Job demands, Work stress, Job insecurity, Conflicts
Analysis
We undertook a pragmatic content analysis of the interview. The overall aim of the analyses
was to identify patterns of responses and reflections that allowed us to assess the relevance of
themes in the COPSOQ-II, to identify emerging issues and to get an impression of how
22
e-Appendix 6: Analysis of non-response in the 14 job groups by sex and
age
Respon- Non-res-
Job group Sex p-value
dents pondents
M 41.1 58.9
Office workers 0.0063
F 54.9 45.1
M 58.6 41.4
Technical draughtsmen 0.1977
F 64.0 36.0
M 45.2 54.8
Teaching and research in Universities 0.0079
F 56.3 43.7
M 30.6 69.4
Health care helpers 0.0474
F 45.3 54.7
M 50.0 50.0
Primary school teachers 0.0122
F 61.1 38.9
M 54.9 45.1
Medical doctors 0.8486
F 54.0 46.0
M 48.7 51.3
Mail carriers 0.0727
F 56.9 43.1
M 34.5 65.6
Slaughterhouse workers 0.1823
F 40.5 59.5
M 40.1 59.9
Smith workers 0.7930
F 44.4 55.6
M 57.0 43.0
Engineers (Construction) 0.7532
F 59.5 41.5
M 31.5 68.5
Sales assistants in shops 0.0238
F 38.8 61.2
M 37.0 63.0
Private bankers <0.0001
F 54.6 45.5
M 54.4 45.7
Business managers 0.5408
F 56.9 43.1
M 51.2 48.9
Police officers 0.6122
F 54.1 45.9
23
Table 2: Analysis of non-response by age groups
Respon-
Job group 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 >55 p-value
ded
Yes 32.6 38.8 42.4 59.3 72.7
Office workers <0.0001
No 67.4 61.2 57.6 40.7 27.3
Technical Yes 14.3 43.7 58.2 63.4 74.8
<0.0001
draughtsmen No 85.7 56.3 41.8 36.6 25.2
Teaching and re- Yes 30.8 43.4 48.7 54.0 63.9
0.0050
search in Universities No 69.2 56.6 51.3 46.0 36.1
Yes 26.6 21.7 33.3 51.1 61.4
Health care helpers <0.0001
No 73.4 78.3 66.7 48.9 38.6
Primary school Yes 25.9 37.5 55.2 65.7 75.6
<0.0001
teachers No 74.1 62.5 44.8 34.3 24.4
Yes 50.8 44.9 62.0 66.0
Medical doctors* <0.0023
No 49.2 55.1 38.0 34.0
Yes 28.8 40.5 44.2 58.0 67.2
Mail carriers <0.0001
No 71.2 59.5 55.8 42.0 32.8
Slaughterhouse Yes 7.0 16.3 27.9 45.1 57.8
<0.0001
workers No 93.0 83.8 72.1 54.9 42.2
Yes 27.8 19.8 38.4 45.8 57.8
Smith workers <0.0001
No 72.2 80.2 61.6 54.2 42.2
Engineers Yes 33.3 43.6 53.2 63.5 72.7
<0.0001
(Construction) No 66.7 56.4 46.8 36.5 27.3
Sales assistants in Yes 28.9 32.4 40.8 49.5 64.4
<0.0001
shops No 71.1 67.6 59.2 50.5 35.6
Yes 33.3 36.2 43.2 57.1 74.2
Private bankers <0.0001
No 66.7 63.8 56.8 43.0 25.8
Yes 0.0 25.0 48.7 55.2 68.4
Business managers <0.0001
No 100.0 75.0 51.4 44.8 31.6
Yes 0.0 34.3 44.6 61.2 65.6
Police officers <0.0001
No 100.0 65.7 55.4 38.9 34.4
* Due to a low number of observations in the youngest age groups, the age groups 18-24 and
25-34 were collapsed for the job group ‘Medical doctors’.
24
e-Appendix 7: Assessment of internal consistency reliability: Job group-specific Cronbach’s alpha values for 26 multi-
item scales with three or more items
Work
Quantitative Emotional Cognitive without
demands demands demands boundaries
Job group (4 items) (4 items) (4 items) (4 items)
1. Office workers 0.84 0.81 0.76 0.84
2. Technical draughtsmen 0.83 0.72 0.79 0.85
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 0.80 0.83 0.70 0.86
4. Health care helpers 0.85 0.75 0.69 0.65
5. Primary school teachers 0.88 0.83 0.74 0.83
6. Medical doctors 0.82 0.80 0.71 0.83
7. Mail carriers 0.81 0.80 0.71 0.56
8. Slaughterhouse workers 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.70
9. Smith workers 0.81 0.75 0.77 0.75
10. Engineers (construction) 0.78 0.72 0.73 0.83
11. Sales assistants in shops 0.87 0.78 0.76 0.76
12. Private bankers 0.89 0.81 0.71 0.75
13. Business managers 0.80 0.77 0.76 0.85
14. Police officers 0.82 0.83 0.74 0.66
25
Domain: Work organization and job content
Possibili-
ties for
Influence Possibili- perfor-
on ties for Unneces-
Role Predic- ming work
Influence working develop- Role sary work
at work hours ment clarity conflicts tability tasks tasks
Job group (4 items) (3 items) (4 items) (4 items) (4 items) (4 items) (4 items) (4 items)
1. Office workers 0.86 0.77 0.80 0.82 0.76 0.75 0.82 0.81
2. Technical draughtsmen 0.83 0.75 0.80 0.82 0.80 0.78 0.79 0.81
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 0.83 0.86 0.74 0.84 0.72 0.82 0.76 0.82
4. Health care helpers 0.86 0.68 0.81 0.84 0.78 0.69 0.80 0.70
5. Primary school teachers 0.82 0.68 0.77 0.80 0.84 0.82 0.82 0.85
6. Medical doctors 0.81 0.73 0.81 0.80 0.75 0.76 0.82 0.80
7. Mail carriers 0.86 0.57 0.82 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.84 0.80
8. Slaughterhouse workers 0.90 0.77 0.79 0.73 0.77 0.80 0.82 0.80
9. Smith workers 0.88 0.65 0.81 0.76 0.77 0.83 0.83 0.81
10. Engineers (construction) 0.83 0.81 0.76 0.81 0.73 0.80 0.78 0.81
11. Sales assistants in shops 0.83 0.72 0.83 0.82 0.78 0.82 0.83 0.81
12. Private bankers 0.81 0.75 0.81 0.84 0.75 0.80 0.77 0.79
13. Business managers 0.85 0.84 0.82 0.86 0.78 0.78 0.75 0.82
14. Police officers 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.81 0.77 0.77 0.81 0.84
26
Domain: Interpersonal relations: cooperation and leadership
Coopera-
tion
between
colleagues Social Quality Coopera-
Social within support of tion with Justice in
support teams, de- Trust from Involve- Changes in
leader- immediate the
from partments between manage- ment of the
colleagues or groups colleagues ment ship supervisor workplace employees workplace
Job group (4 items) (4 items) (4 items) (4 items) (4 items) (4 items) (4 items) (3 items) (4 items)
1. Office workers 0.83 0.84 0.83 0.91 0.93 0.89 0.87 0.89 0.88
2. Technical draughtsmen 0.82 0.81 0.82 0.88 0.89 0.88 0.84 0.88 0.88
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 0.83 0.85 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.86 0.88 0.87
4. Health care helpers 0.83 0.86 0.84 0.92 0.94 0.91 0.84 0.92 0.84
5. Primary school teachers 0.84 0.73 0.79 0.90 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.89 0.81
6. Medical doctors 0.77 0.75 0.76 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.80 0.89 0.83
7. Mail carriers 0.83 0.85 0.78 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.87 0.88 0.83
8. Slaughterhouse workers 0.83 0.81 0.82 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.85 0.88 0.81
9. Smith workers 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.89 0.93 0.90 0.83 0.90 0.90
10. Engineers (construction) 0.77 0.78 0.76 0.85 0.87 0.81 0.78 0.87 0.86
11. Sales assistants in shops 0.86 0.87 0.84 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.89 0.91 0.83
12. Private bankers 0.82 0.79 0.78 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.85 0.90 0.85
13. Business managers 0.79 0.81 0.80 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.89 0.87
14. Police officers 0.81 0.78 0.79 0.89 0.91 0.88 0.83 0.89 0.84
27
Domain: Reactions to the work situation
Table 4: Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) for multi-item scales
Conflict
Commitment between
Experience work-life
to the
of meaning Work Job and
at work workplace engagement insecurity private life
Job group (4 items) (4 items) (9 items) (3 items) (3 items)
1. Office workers 0.90 0.92 0.95 0.78 0.89
2. Technical draughtsmen 0.87 0.92 0.95 0.76 0.90
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.81 0.91
4. Health care helpers 0.87 0.92 0.95 0.81 0.91
5. Primary school teachers 0.83 0.92 0.95 0.79 0.90
6. Medical doctors 0.87 0.91 0.94 0.81 0.86
7. Mail carriers 0.89 0.89 0.94 0.79 0.86
8. Slaughterhouse workers 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.78 0.87
9. Smith workers 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.79 0.86
10. Engineers (construction) 0.89 0.91 0.95 0.78 0.89
11. Sales assistants in shops 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.73 0.91
12. Private bankers 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.84 0.90
13. Business managers 0.91 0.92 0.96 0.77 0.91
14. Police officers 0.88 0.89 0.93 0.55 0.85
28
e-Appendix 8: Assessment of construct validity: Job group-specific means
on 32 measures of psychosocial working conditions (4 single items and
28 multi-item scales with two or more items).
29
Table 2: Work pace (2 items)
30
Table 4: Demands to conceal feelings (2 items)
31
Table 6: Work without boundaries (4 items)
32
Table 8: Influence on working hours (3 items)
33
Table 10: Role clarity (4 items)
34
Table 12: Predictability (4 items)
35
Table 14: Unnecessary work tasks (4 items)
36
Table 16: Cooperation between colleagues within teams, departments, or groups (4 items)
37
Table 18: Social support from management (4 items)
38
Table 20: Cooperation with immediate supervisor (4 items)
39
Table 22: Involvement of employees (3 items)
40
Table 24: Recognition (1 item)
41
Table 26: Commitment to the workplace (4 items)
42
Table 28: Job insecurity (3 items)
43
Table 30: Job satisfaction (1 item)
44
Table 32: Conflict between work-life and private life (3 items)
45
e-Appendix 9: Assessment of factorial validity: Results from job group-specific confirmatory factor analyses (CFA)
for 22 multi-item scales with four or more items
46
Table 2: Emotional demands (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 19.2/2 0.175 0.985 0.039
2. Technical draughtsmen 3.3/2 0.046 0.998 0.024
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 6.9/2 0.096 0.997 0.026
4. Health care helpers 2.6/2 0.037 0.999 0.024
5. Primary school teachers 8.5/2 0.104 0.995 0.025
6. Medical doctors 7.2/2 0.101 0.994 0.032
7. Mail carriers 0.8/2 0.000 1.000 0.010
8. Slaughterhouse workers 14.4/2 0.145 0.982 0.036
9. Smith workers 4.5/2 0.075 0.997 0.027
10. Engineers (construction) 0.6/2 0.000 1.000 0.009
11. Sales assistants in shops 4.5/2 0.070 0.997 0.025
12. Private bankers 7.4/2 0.087 0.996 0.021
13. Business managers 8.6/2 0.104 0.994 0.029
14. Police officers 103.0/2 0.412 0.943 0.101
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
47
Table 3: Cognitive demands (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 1.5/2 0.000 1.000 0.013
2. Technical draughtsmen 0.4/2 0.000 1.000 0.006
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 12.2/2 0.138 0.980 0.047
4. Health care helpers 0.9/2 0.000 1.000 0.011
5. Primary school teachers 3.7/2 0.053 0.996 0.022
6. Medical doctors 3.1/2 0.046 0.997 0.024
7. Mail carriers 2.0/2 0.009 1.000 0.020
8. Slaughterhouse workers 5.0/2 0.071 0.998 0.025
9. Smith workers 5.2/2 0.081 0.996 0.021
10. Engineers (construction) 1.4/2 0.000 1.000 0.014
11. Sales assistants in shops 1.0/2 0.000 1.000 0.010
12. Private bankers 3.2/2 0.041 0.998 0.019
13. Business managers 1.9/2 0.000 1.000 0.011
14. Police officers 1.1/2 0.000 1.000 0.013
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
48
Table 4: Work without boundaries (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 3.3/2 0.048 0.999 0.015
2. Technical draughtsmen 33.2/2 0.223 0.987 0.047
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 3.2/2 0.047 1.000 0.011
4. Health care helpers 0.1/2 0.000 1.000 0.004
5. Primary school teachers 4.6/2 0.066 0.999 0.018
6. Medical doctors 1.7/2 0.000 1.000 0.012
7. Mail carriers 3.9/2 0.061 0.991 0.037
8. Slaughterhouse workers 5.8/2 0.080 0.990 0.038
9. Smith workers 7.6/2 0.108 0.992 0.041
10. Engineers (construction) 3.8/2 0.052 0.999 0.015
11. Sales assistants in shops 2.6/2 0.033 0.999 0.019
12. Private bankers 9.9/2 0.105 0.989 0.033
13. Business managers 4.7/2 0.066 0.999 0.018
14. Police officers 4.7/2 0.068 0.991 0.034
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
49
Domain: Work organization and job content
Table 5: Influence at work (4 items)
Model fit indeces
Job group 2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 9.2/2 0.111 0.997 0.025
2. Technical draughtsmen 3.8/2 0.053 0.999 0.015
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 7.4/2 0.100 0.996 0.030
4. Health care helpers 6.6/2 0.103 0.997 0.024
5. Primary school teachers 10.4/2 0.118 0.993 0.030
6. Medical doctors 11.1/2 0.133 0.991 0.029
7. Mail carriers 17.5/2 0.175 0.991 0.033
8. Slaughterhouse workers 4.1/2 0.060 0.999 0.011
9. Smith workers 0.0/2 0.000 1.000 0.001
10. Engineers (construction) 13.9/2 0.131 0.993 0.037
11. Sales assistants in shops 14.9/2 0.151 0.991 0.027
12. Private bankers 14.6/2 0.132 0.990 0.031
13. Business managers 23.0/2 0.182 0.996 0.041
14. Police officers 17.2/2 0.159 0.986 0.032
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
50
Table 6: Possibilities for development (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 3.7/2 0.054 0.999 0.016
2. Technical draughtsmen 22.3/2 0.179 0.985 0.038
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 1.8/2 0.000 1.000 0.014
4. Health care helpers 15.3/2 0.174 0.986 0.039
5. Primary school teachers 47.0/2 0.272 0.961 0.074
6. Medical doctors 18.0/2 0.175 0.988 0.032
7. Mail carriers 7.2/2 0.100 0.996 0.024
8. Slaughterhouse workers 18.7/2 0.165 0.987 0.034
9. Smith workers 23.9/2 0.212 0.982 0.043
10. Engineers (construction) 17.5/2 0.150 0.985 0.041
11. Sales assistants in shops 6.3/2 0.087 0.997 0.021
12. Private bankers 16.0/2 0.138 0.993 0.026
13. Business managers 20.0/2 0.169 0.989 0.037
14. Police officers 21.9/2 0.182 0.986 0.041
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
51
Table 7: Role clarity (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 17.5/2 0.162 0.989 0.030
2. Technical draughtsmen 19.1/2 0.164 0.988 0.032
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 27.9/2 0.219 0.982 0.051
4. Health care helpers 3.9/2 0.066 0.999 0.017
5. Primary school teachers 42.4/2 0.256 0.979 0.057
6. Medical doctors 18.0/2 0.175 0.988 0.035
7. Mail carriers 69.4/2 0.360 0.938 0.061
8. Slaughterhouse workers 14.4/2 0.142 0.985 0.034
9. Smith workers 2.3/2 0.026 1.000 0.014
10. Engineers (construction) 24.1/2 0.180 0.986 0.042
11. Sales assistants in shops 14.8/2 0.152 0.987 0.035
12. Private bankers 14.4/2 0.131 0.995 0.030
13. Business managers 17.7/2 0.158 0.993 0.026
14. Police officers 63.4/2 0.320 0.963 0.071
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
52
Table 8: Role conflicts (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 3.0/2 0.043 0.998 0.018
2. Technical draughtsmen 4.8/2 0.067 0.997 0.020
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 7.0/2 0.098 0.988 0.031
4. Health care helpers 2.5/2 0.033 0.999 0.020
5. Primary school teachers 0.2/2 0.000 1.000 0.003
6. Medical doctors 3.3/2 0.050 0.998 0.021
7. Mail carriers 8.0/2 0.109 0.993 0.028
8. Slaughterhouse workers 15.0/2 0.147 0.983 0.030
9. Smith workers 14.9/2 0.165 0.978 0.036
10. Engineers (construction) 0.4/2 0.000 1.000 0.007
11. Sales assistants in shops 5.8/2 0.084 0.995 0.024
12. Private bankers 23.7/2 0.175 0.974 0.041
13. Business managers 7.6/2 0.095 0.993 0.030
14. Police officers 17.4/2 0.160 0.982 0.039
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
53
Table 9: Predictability (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 10.2 0.121 0.992 0.036
2. Technical draughtsmen 13.2 0.135 0.991 0.030
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 4.7 0.072 0.998 0.023
4. Health care helpers 1.1 0.000 1.000 0.015
5. Primary school teachers 16.2 0.154 0.991 0.036
6. Medical doctors 2.4 0.029 0.999 0.017
7. Mail carriers 1.7 0.000 1.000 0.014
8. Slaughterhouse workers 2.1 0.013 1.000 0.015
9. Smith workers 17.7 0.182 0.988 0.031
10. Engineers (construction) 2.7 0.033 1.000 0.012
11. Sales assistants in shops 5.2 0.078 0.997 0.021
12. Private bankers 8.1 0.093 0.996 0.027
13. Business managers 10.3 0.116 0.995 0.030
14. Police officers 0.7 0.000 1.000 0.007
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
54
Table 10: Possibilities for performing work tasks (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 29.3/2 0.220 0.981 0.048
2. Technical draughtsmen 27.9/2 0.204 0.975 0.057
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 19.1/2 0.181 0.974 0.043
4. Health care helpers 4.5/2 0.076 0.997 0.017
5. Primary school teachers 11.7/2 0.127 0.992 0.033
6. Medical doctors 8.7/2 0.114 0.994 0.030
7. Mail carriers 8.8/2 0.115 0.996 0.025
8. Slaughterhouse workers 7.3/2 0.094 0.996 0.024
9. Smith workers 23.9/2 0.215 0.983 0.038
10. Engineers (construction) 19.5/2 0.162 0.983 0.043
11. Sales assistants in shops 18.5/2 0.177 0.989 0.034
12. Private bankers 7.1/2 0.085 0.996 0.023
13. Business managers 11.2/2 0.122 0.991 0.030
14. Police officers 32.3/2 0.228 0.977 0.061
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
55
Table 11: Unnecessary work tasks (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 15.6/2 0.157 0.988 0.032
2. Technical draughtsmen 18.2/2 0.162 0.987 0.037
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 17.9/2 0.175 0.985 0.036
4. Health care helpers 11.0/2 0.147 0.973 0.039
5. Primary school teachers 8.3/2 0.102 0.997 0.021
6. Medical doctors 8.5/2 0.112 0.995 0.026
7. Mail carriers 5.8/2 0.086 0.997 0.022
8. Slaughterhouse workers 8.7/2 0.107 0.994 0.024
9. Smith workers 16.2/2 0.173 0.985 0.037
10. Engineers (construction) 19.3/2 0.161 0.986 0.039
11. Sales assistants in shops 35.5/2 0.255 0.967 0.043
12. Private bankers 11.9/2 0.119 0.992 0.034
13. Business managers 11.2/2 0.123 0.993 0.026
14. Police officers 44.4/2 0.270 0.978 0.059
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
56
Domain: Interpersonal relations: cooperation and leadership
Table 12: Social support from colleagues (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 40.4/2 0.263 0.974 0.062
2. Technical draughtsmen 51.5/2 0.287 0.971 0.081
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 24.7/2 0.213 0.979 0.044
4. Health care helpers 20.8/2 0.212 0.985 0.034
5. Primary school teachers 19.2/2 0.168 0.992 0.031
6. Medical doctors 46.5/2 0.298 0.949 0.071
7. Mail carriers 26.5/2 0.221 0.982 0.043
8. Slaughterhouse workers 26.7/2 0.211 0.984 0.040
9. Smith workers 32.4/2 0.258 0.978 0.055
10. Engineers (construction) 35.3/2 0.224 0.961 0.060
11. Sales assistants in shops 12.6/2 0.144 0.995 0.027
12. Private bankers 48.2/2 0.258 0.973 0.048
13. Business managers 63.7/2 0.321 0.943 0.079
14. Police officers 61.4/2 0.323 0.963 0.079
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
57
Table 13: Cooperation between colleagues within teams, departments, or groups (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 3.9/2 0.059 0.999 0.016
2. Technical draughtsmen 3.3/2 0.047 0.999 0.015
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 12.2/2 0.144 0.992 0.036
4. Health care helpers 19.1/2 0.203 0.989 0.038
5. Primary school teachers 24.1/2 0.191 0.963 0.051
6. Medical doctors 34.3/2 0.254 0.956 0.063
7. Mail carriers 4.7/2 0.074 0.998 0.016
8. Slaughterhouse workers 16.7/2 0.163 0.989 0.032
9. Smith workers 2.0/2 0.000 1.000 0.012
10. Engineers (construction) 11.9/2 0.122 0.989 0.031
11. Sales assistants in shops 28.2/2 0.227 0.987 0.032
12. Private bankers 11.2/2 0.115 0.993 0.028
13. Business managers 7.9/2 0.099 0.995 0.025
14. Police officers 10.1/2 0.119 0.992 0.030
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
58
Table 14: Trust between colleagues (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 18.5/2 0.173 0.989 0.036
2. Technical draughtsmen 26.0/2 0.200 0.984 0.038
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 16.2/2 0.169 0.985 0.040
4. Health care helpers 1.5/2 0.000 1.000 0.010
5. Primary school teachers 24.8/2 0.194 0.985 0.042
6. Medical doctors 20.3/2 0.191 0.975 0.053
7. Mail carriers 17.6/2 0.176 0.978 0.034
8. Slaughterhouse workers 5.2/2 0.076 0.998 0.017
9. Smith workers 4.1/2 0.069 0.998 0.019
10. Engineers (construction) 12.9/2 0.128 0.991 0.032
11. Sales assistants in shops 4.1/2 0.064 0.999 0.014
12. Private bankers 42.9/2 0.243 0.975 0.063
13. Business managers 7.25/2 0.097 0.995 0.024
14. Police officers 22.8/2 0.191 0.978 0.044
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
59
Table 15: Social support from management (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 8.4/2 0.109 0.999 0.013
2. Technical draughtsmen 50.7/2 0.285 0.985 0.047
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 8.3/2 0.116 0.998 0.017
4. Health care helpers 1.4/2 0.000 1.000 0.006
5. Primary school teachers 7.7/2 0.100 0.998 0.015
6. Medical doctors 18.7/2 0.186 0.994 0.026
7. Mail carriers 2.9/2 0.042 1.000 0.009
8. Slaughterhouse workers 6.2/2 0.088 0.999 0.014
9. Smith workers 2.9/2 0.046 1.000 0.009
10. Engineers (construction) 14.8/2 0.141 0.993 0.029
11. Sales assistants in shops 7.2/2 0.103 0.999 0.019
12. Private bankers 17.0/2 0.149 0.995 0.025
13. Business managers 11.0/2 0.125 0.996 0.019
14. Police officers 44.2/2 0.278 0.988 0.039
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
60
Table 16: Quality of leadership (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 0.3/2 0.000 1.000 0.002
2. Technical draughtsmen 8.8/2 0.107 0.998 0.016
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 1.4/2 0.000 1.000 0.006
4. Health care helpers 0.2/2 0.000 1.000 0.001
5. Primary school teachers 1.8/2 0.000 1.000 0.007
6. Medical doctors 16.9/2 0.175 0.993 0.031
7. Mail carriers 1.5/2 0.000 1.000 0.006
8. Slaughterhouse workers 9.8/2 0.121 0.998 0.013
9. Smith workers 11.4/2 0.146 0.998 0.015
10. Engineers (construction) 4.2/2 0.058 0.999 0.012
11. Sales assistants in shops 4.1/2 0.065 0.999 0.010
12. Private bankers 1.7/2 0.000 1.000 0.008
13. Business managers 1.3/2 0.000 1.000 0.008
14. Police officers 10.6/2 0.125 0.998 0.017
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
61
Table 17: Cooperation with immediate supervisor (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 3.5/2 0.053 0.999 0.012
2. Technical draughtsmen 1.7/2 0.000 1.000 0.009
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 6.0/2 0.092 0.998 0.016
4. Health care helpers 1.7/2 0.000 1.000 0.006
5. Primary school teachers 11.7/2 0.131 0.996 0.020
6. Medical doctors 0.3/2 0.000 1.000 0.004
7. Mail carriers 1.2/2 0.000 1.000 0.006
8. Slaughterhouse workers 1.2/2 0.000 1.000 0.006
9. Smith workers 4.2/2 0.071 0.999 0.012
10. Engineers (construction) 0.9/2 0.000 1.000 0.009
11. Sales assistants in shops 0.1/2 0.000 1.000 0.002
12. Private bankers 5.1/2 0.068 0.999 0.012
13. Business managers 0.7/2 0.000 1.000 0.006
14. Police officers 3./2 0.042 1.000 0.011
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
62
Table 18: Justice in the workplace (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 54.0/2 0.309 0.988 0.054
2. Technical draughtsmen 24.8/2 0.196 0.990 0.051
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 9.1/2 0.122 0.997 0.023
4. Health care helpers 21.3/2 0.217 0.992 0.027
5. Primary school teachers 33.9/2 0.230 0.993 0.059
6. Medical doctors 14.1/2 0.157 0.994 0.041
7. Mail carriers 22.4/2 0.203 0.994 0.038
8. Slaughterhouse workers 52.7/2 0.299 0.982 0.065
9. Smith workers 23.6/2 0.216 0.989 0.037
10. Engineers (construction) 49.4/2 0.268 0.984 0.069
11. Sales assistants in shops 26.3/2 0.219 0.996 0.041
12. Private bankers 17.8/2 0.152 0.997 0.034
13. Business managers 24.2/2 0.193 0.994 0.050
14. Police officers 12.8/2 0.137 0.997 0.032
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
63
Table 19: Changes in the workplace (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 4.2/2 0.077 0.999 0.018
2. Technical draughtsmen 4.0/2 0.070 0.999 0.023
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 6.8/2 0.120 0.997 0.025
4. Health care helpers 18.3/2 0.277 0.975 0.058
5. Primary school teachers 11.4/2 0.162 0.988 0.037
6. Medical doctors 0.6/2 0.000 1.000 0.008
7. Mail carriers 4.4/2 0.075 0.998 0.017
8. Slaughterhouse workers 13.3/2 0.163 0.989 0.036
9. Smith workers 9.2/2 0.160 0.996 0.030
10. Engineers (construction) 2.6/2 0.037 1.000 0.016
11. Sales assistants in shops 12.7/2 0.220 0.985 0.038
12. Private bankers 8.4/2 0.107 0.997 0.024
13. Business managers 4.9/2 0.081 0.998 0.019
14. Police officers 10.1/2 0.132 0.994 0.028
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
64
Domain: Reactions to the work situation
Table 20: Experience of meaning at work (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 12.0/2 0.131 0.998 0.019
2. Technical draughtsmen 12.5/2 0.129 0.997 0.021
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 2.5/2 0.030 1.000 0.008
4. Health care helpers 6.7/2 0.104 0.998 0.024
5. Primary school teachers 43.5/2 0.260 0.981 0.048
6. Medical doctors 50.0/2 0.304 0.981 0.060
7. Mail carriers 11.7/2 0.136 0.997 0.021
8. Slaughterhouse workers 8.8/2 0.105 0.998 0.011
9. Smith workers 18.2/2 0.182 0.995 0.023
10. Engineers (construction) 17.3/2 0.149 0.997 0.023
11. Sales assistants in shops 28.1/2 0.217 0.993 0.029
12. Private bankers 31.0/2 0.200 0.994 0.034
13. Business managers 11.9/2 0.125 0.998 0.015
14. Police officers 28.2/2 0.209 0.991 0.041
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
65
Table 21: Commitment to the workplace (4 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 17.9/2 0.170 0.998 0.018
2. Technical draughtsmen 10.5/2 0.120 0.999 0.014
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 19.3/2 0.190 0.995 0.028
4. Health care helpers 5.5/2 0.092 0.999 0.011
5. Primary school teachers 3.4/2 0.048 1.000 0.007
6. Medical doctors 4.9/2 0.077 0.999 0.012
7. Mail carriers 12.5/2 0.145 0.996 0.020
8. Slaughterhouse workers 28.1/2 0.216 0.996 0.021
9. Smith workers 10.9/2 0.139 0.999 0.013
10. Engineers (construction) 11.9/2 0.123 0.999 0.017
11. Sales assistants in shops 2.8/2 0.039 1.000 0.005
12. Private bankers 1.6/2 0.000 1.000 0.005
13. Business managers 6.3/2 0.084 0.999 0.011
14. Police officers 27.6/2 0.211 0.992 0.024
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
66
Table 22: Work engagement (9 items)
Job group Model fit indeces
2
χ /DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 304.6/27 0.194 0.979 0.042
2. Technical draughtsmen 339.5/27 0.199 0.977 0.047
3. Teaching and research staff in universities 266.3/27 0.193 0.980 0.049
4. Health care helpers 161.7/27 0.156 0.988 0.031
5. Primary school teachers 214.7/27 0.152 0.987 0.041
6. Medical doctors 191.3/27 0.158 0.986 0.043
7. Mail carriers 305.3/27 0.205 0.978 0.054
8. Slaughterhouse workers 354.5/27 0.208 0.973 0.048
9. Smith workers 309.0/27 0.214 0.976 0.054
10. Engineers (construction) 234.9/27 0.153 0.986 0.047
11. Sales assistants in shops 292.8/27 0.197 0.982 0.050
12. Private bankers 242.2/27 0.153 0.990 0.033
13. Business managers 281.6/27 0.177 0.988 0.038
14. Police officers 356.5/27 0.208 0.962 0.067
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
67
e-Appendix 10: Investigation of cross-loadings in the domains Work organization and job content and Demands at
work: Results from job group-specific confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) for multi-item scales in the two domains
Table 1.1 Results of job group specific confirmatory factor analysis of the eight factor solution of the scales in the domain Work organization and
job content
Model 1: No cross-loadings Model 2: With cross-loadings
Job group χ2/DF RMSEA CFI SRMR χ2/DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 704/406 0.053 0.957 0.059
2. Technical draughtsmen 889/406 0.063 0.932 0.066 752/404 0.054 0.951 0.058
3. Teaching and research staff in 796/406 0.062 0.931 0.069 679/402 0.053 0.951 0.061
universities
4. Health care helpers 629/406 0.054 0.941 0.071 587/404 0.049 0.951 0.066
5. Primary school teachers 670/406 0.050 0.960 0.060
6. Medical doctors 808/406 0.065 0.928 0.075 683/402 0.055 0.950 0.065
7. Mail carriers 771/406 0.063 0.937 0.071 667/403 0.054 0.954 0.063
8. Slaughterhouse workers 855/406 0.066 0.945 0.072 767/405 0.060 0.955 0.065
9. Smith workers 680/406 0.056 0.950 0.064
10. Engineers (construction) 871/406 0.059 0.946 0.064 770/405 0.053 0.957 0.059
11. Sales assistants in shops 725/406 0.058 0.949 0.064 694/405 0.055 0.954 0.061
12. Private bankers 823/406 0.055 0.945 0.060 781/405 0.052 0.951 0.058
13. Business managers 942/406 0.067 0.952 0.061
14. Police officers 882/406 0.064 0.938 0.064 761/404 0.056 0.954 0.058
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
68
Table 1.2 Cross-loadings in the ten job groups with unsatisfactory model fit in confirmatory factor analyses of the eight-factor solution of the scales
in the domain Work organization and job content
Job group Scale Item cross-loading on scale
Technical draughtsmen Influence at work Are there enough employees at work for you to do your job satisfactorily?
Possibilities for Do you receive timely information about e.g. important decisions, changes and
development plans for the future at your place of work?
Teaching and research staff in Influence on working Do you have any influence on the order in which you carry out your work tasks?
universities hours
Predictability Do your work tasks vary a lot?
Possibilities for performing Do you have any influence on how you carry out your tasks at work?
work tasks
Role clarity Do you receive timely information about e.g. important decisions, changes and
plans for the future at your place of work?
Health care helpers Possibilities for Do you have the tools you need (e.g. technical assistive devices, tools,
development machinery, IT solutions, etc.) for you to do your job satisfactorily?
Are you informed well in advance of changes to whom you will be working
with?
Medical doctors Possibilities for performing Do you have good opportunities for further training and education?
work tasks
Possibilities for Are there clear goals for your work tasks?
development Do you receive timely information about e.g. important decisions, changes and
plans for the future at your place of work?
Are there enough employees at work for you to do your job satisfactorily?
Mail carriers Role clarity Do you have sufficient authority to deal with the responsibilities you have in
your work?
Possibilities for performing Do you have influence on your working hours, e.g. when you arrive at work or
work tasks when you go home from work?
69
Influence on working Do you receive timely information about e.g. important decisions, changes and
hours plans for the future at your place of work?
Slaughterhouse workers Influence at work Are there enough employees at work for you to do your job satisfactorily?
Engineers (construction) Possibilities for Do you receive timely information about e.g. important decisions, changes and
development plans for the future at your place of work?
Sales assistants in shops Unnecessary work tasks Do you have sufficient authority to deal with the responsibilities you have in
your work?
Private bankers Possibilities for Do you receive timely information about e.g. important decisions, changes and
development plans for the future at your place of work?
Police officers Influence on working Do you have any influence on the order in which you carry out your work tasks?
hours
Possibilities for performing Do your work tasks vary a lot?
work tasks
70
Table 2.1 Results of job group specific confirmatory factor analysis of the six-factor solution of the scales in the domain Demands at work
Model 1: No cross-loadings Model 2: With cross-loadings
Job group χ2/DF RMSEA CFI SRMR χ2/DF RMSEA CFI SRMR
1. Office workers 425/155 0.083 0.949 0.070 366/154 0.074 0.960 0.063
2. Technical draughtsmen 418/155 0.078 0.952 0.066
3. Teaching and research staff in 468/155 0.095 0.925 0.089 306/153 0.067 0.963 0.068
universities
4. Health care helpers 320/155 0.074 0.943 0.079
5. Primary school teachers 402/155 0.080 0.959 0.076
6. Medical doctors 405/155 0.084 0.920 0.079 285/154 0.061 0.958 0.066
7. Mail carriers 559/155 0.109 0.873 0.844 274/153 0.060 0.962 0.065
8. Slaughterhouse workers 517/155 0.097 0.875 0.091 385/153 0.078 0.920 0.078
9. Smith workers 410/155 0.090 0.915 0.077 321/154 0.073 0.945 0.067
10. Engineers (construction) 382/155 0.071 0.943 0.064
11. Sales assistants in shops 510/155 0.099 0.918 0.080 315/153 0.067 0.963 0.061
12. Private bankers 609/155 0.096 0.921 0.080 433/153 0.076 0.951 0.066
13. Business managers 423/155 0.079 0.941 0.072
14. Police officers 563/155 0.099 0.902 0.082 292/119 0.074 0.952 0.060
Note: RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
71
Table 2.2 Cross-loadings in the nine job groups with unsatisfactory model fit in confirmatory factor analyses of the six-factor solution of the scales
in the domain Demands at work
Job group Scale Item cross-loading on scale
Office workers Quantitative demands How often does your job require you to work overtime, i.e. beyond your agreed
or expected working hours?
Teaching and research staff in Quantitative demands How often does your job require you to work overtime, i.e. beyond your agreed
universities or expected working hours?
Work pace Do you have to pay attention to many things at once in your job?
Medical doctors Work pace How often does your job require you to work overtime, i.e. beyond your agreed
or expected working hours?
Cognitive demands How often do you receive unscheduled work tasks that place you under time
pressure?
Mail carriers Work pace How often does your job require you to work overtime, i.e. beyond your agreed
or expected working hours?
Quantitative demands Do you have to pay attention to many things at once in your job?
Slaughterhouse workers Quantitative demands Do you have to pay attention to many things at once in your job?
Cognitive demands How often do you receive unscheduled work tasks that place you under time
pressure?
Smith workers Work pace Do you have to pay attention to many things at once in your job?
Sales assistants in shops Work pace How often does your job require you to work overtime, i.e. beyond your agreed
or expected working hours?
Do you have to pay attention to many things at once in your job?
Private bankers Quantitative demands How often does your job require you to work overtime, i.e. beyond your agreed
or expected working hours?
Cognitive demands Do you have to work very fast?
Police officers Work pace Do you have to pay attention to many things at once in your job?
72
How often do you receive unscheduled work tasks that place you under time
pressure?
Quantitative demands Do you have to work very fast?
Emotional demands How often do you work at home outside of your normal working hours, e.g. in
the evening, during weekends or during holidays?
73