Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Aug 20:15:26.
doi: 10.1186/s12995-020-00277-w. eCollection 2020.

Comparing perceived psychosocial working conditions of nurses and physicians in two university hospitals in Germany with other German professionals - feasibility of scale conversion between two versions of the German Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ)

Anke Wagner  1 , Matthias Nübling  2 , Antje Hammer  3 , Tanja Manser  4 , Monika A Rieger  1 ; WorkSafeMed Consortium
Collaborators, Affiliations

Comparing perceived psychosocial working conditions of nurses and physicians in two university hospitals in Germany with other German professionals - feasibility of scale conversion between two versions of the German Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ)

Anke Wagner et al. J Occup Med Toxicol. .

Abstract

Background: In 2015, the WorkSafeMed study assessed, amongst others, perceived psychosocial working conditions in nurses (n = 567) and physicians (n = 381) from two German university hospitals using scales from the German standard version of the COPSOQ (Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire). This standard version is based on the international COPSOQ I and II. Since 2017, a further developed version of the German COPSOQ (G-COPSOQ III) has been available and data from this version are stored in the German COPSOQ database. The aim of the present study was to compare scales depicting perceived psychosocial workloads and strain in hospital staff from the WorkSafeMed study with reference data (hospital care nurses, general hospital physicians, reference values across all occupations) from the German COPSOQ database (2012-2017). As preliminary work, we explored whether a conversion of COPSOQ scales based on data from the WorkSafeMed study to the G-COPSOQ III scales was possible.

Methods: We applied a multistep approach for conversion. First, we compared 17 COPSOQ scales used in the WorkSafeMed study with the corresponding scales from the G-COPSOQ III according to content and then decided if a conversion was appropriate. If possible, we converted WorkSafeMed scales - the converted scales comprised the same content and number of items as in G-COPSOQ III. An explorative statistical analysis for each original and converted WorkSafeMed scale followed detecting possible statistical and relevant differences between the scales. We then compared converted WorkSafeMed scales with reference data from the German COPSOQ database.

Results: Based on the comparison undertaken according to content, a conversion was possible for 16 scales. Using the data from the WorkSafeMed study, the statistical analysis showed only differences between original and converted COPSOQ scales "control over working time" (mean 40.2 vs. 51.8, dCohen = 0.56) and "social relations" (mean 55.6 vs. 41.8, dCohen = - 0.55). Comparing converted WorkSafeMed scales with reference data revealed higher values for "quantitative demands", "work-privacy-conflict", and "job satisfaction" in the WorkSafeMed sample.

Conclusions: The conversion of WorkSafeMed scales was appropriate, allowed a comparison with three reference values in the German COPSOQ database and revealed some implications for improving psychosocial working conditions of nurses and physicians in university hospitals in Germany.

Keywords: COPSOQ database; Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire; Explorative statistical analysis; Hospitals; Nurses; Physicians; Psychosocial working conditions; Reference data.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Content of the G-COPSOQ II scales in the WorkSafeMed study
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kristensen TS, Hannerz H, Høgh A, Borg V. The Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire—a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2005;31:438–449. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.948. - DOI - PubMed
    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. doi: 10.1177/1403494809349858. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Burr H, Berthelsen H, Moncada S, Nübling M, Dupret E, Demiral Y, et al. The third version of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. Saf Health Work. 2019;10:482–503. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2019.10.002. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Berthelsen H, Westerlund H, Bergström G, Burr H. Validation of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire version III and establishment of benchmarks for psychosocial risk Management in Sweden. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020. 10.3390/ijerph17093179. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Şahan C, Baydur H, Demiral Y. A novel version of Copenhagen psychosocial Questionnaire-3: Turkish validation study. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2019;74:297–309. doi: 10.1080/19338244.2018.1538095. - DOI - PubMed