COPSOQ: The German situation€¦ · COPSOQ = COpenhagen PsychoSOcial Questionnaire Autoren: TS...

Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 1

Dr. Matthias Nübling

FFAS: Freiburg research centreoccupational and social medicine

Bertoldstr. 27D-79098 Freiburg, Germany

Tel: ++49 (0)761 894421, Fax: ++49 (0)761 83432 [email protected]

www.ffas.de ♦ www.copsoq.de

Copenhagen 6.9.2007

COPSOQ: The German situation



I. Background

II. Adaptation and translation into German

III. Validation study: psychometric qualities of questionnaire and scales

IV. Formation of database in cooperation science-enterprises/organisations

V. Use of database with profession specific reference values

From the COPSOQ validation study to a database with profession specific reference values for

psychosocial factors



I. Background


Background

• Sick leave due to psychosocial factors ++

– i.e.: DAK 2005: + 70 % from 1997 und 2004 (total sick leave -,=)

• Costs raising

• D: Obligation to risk assessment („Gefährdungsanalyse“, §5ff,

ArbSchG)

• How? Which instruments? (lack of qualified instruments)


Background / starting point

• Need of (valid and reliable) measurement tools

• Measurement of psychosocial factors difficult (as compared to safety-checklists)

• Lot of different models, theories (DCSM, ERI,…). And: theories aredetermining the instruments! (and the results)

• Different assessment techniques (observation, expert ratings, experimental techniques, self administered questionnaires)


ISO for measuring psychosocial factors

• ISO 10075-3: 3 levels

– Orienting measurement (level 1)

– Screening measurement (level 2)

– Exact measurement (level 3)

• ISO: depending on level: different psychometric requirements



II. COPSOQ: Adaptation and translation into

German


COPSOQ validation study 2003-2005

„Methods for the assessment of mental work load – testing of a measuring procedure (COPSOQ)“

• Funding: Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA/FIOSH)

• Project team:– FFAS Freiburg (M. Nübling, M. Michaelis)– Univ. Freiburg, Medical Sociology (U. Stößel)– Univ. Wuppertal, Occupational Medicine (H.-M. Hasselhorn,

F. Hofmann)

• External partners– Univ. Freiburg, Psychology (M. Wirtz)– ami (National Institute of Occ. Health), Copenhagen (T.

Kristensen)


COPSOQ- the original

COPSOQ = COpenhagen PsychoSOcial QuestionnaireAutoren: TS Kistensen, V Borg, ami, Kopenhagen 2000N=1858. „Based on theory but not on one specific theory“. (Broad)

3 Versions:• Long: „Research Quest.“: 30 Scales, 141 Items (-> with some

modifications = starting point of German study)• Middle: „Quest. for work environment professionals“: 26 Scales,

95 Items • Short: „Quest. for workplaces“: 8 Scales, 44 Items


COPSOQ-study: steps (1)

• 1. Translation and adaptation of COPSOQ (2003)– translation – retranslation: English - German - English– translation – retranslation: Danish - German – Danish– semantic adaptation– additional items and scales– Expert- decision on final wording (TSK, HMH, MN)

• 2. Pilot study (2003, N= 352), final modifications• 3. Main study (2003/04, N = 2.561), heterogeneous

(not representative as in DK) spectrum of jobs, cooperation with enterprises / organisations (“survey for free”)


German COPSOQ- main study,long versionDemands (5)- Quantitative demands- Cognitive demands- Emotional demands- Demands for hiding emotions- Sensorial demands

Influence and Development (5)- Influence at work- Degree of freedom at work- Possibilities of development- Meaning of work- Workplace commitment

Interpersonal relations and leadership (8)- Predictability- Role clarity- Role conflicts- Quality of leadership- Social support- Feedback- Social relations- Sense of community

Strain (effects, outcomes)- Job satisfaction- Work ability- General health- Burnout- Behavioral stress- Cognitive stress- Satisfaction with life

Further parameters (1+5)- Work - privacy conflict- Procedural justice- Relational justice- Job insecurity- Mobbing- Intention to leave


COPSOQ-study: steps (2)

• 4. Reanalysis of the measurement properties (2004)– Objectivity (measurement, evaluation)– Sensitivity– Validity (content, construct, criterion)– Reliability– Diagnostic power– Generalisability– Suitability in terms of the ISO 10075-3

• 5. Proposal of a shortened measuring instrument

• 6. Final report (May 2005)



III. Validation study: psychometric qualities of

questionnaire and scales – some examples


ex: Reliability scales (internal consistency)

Reliabilitäten: Skalen Anforderungen

82 83 82

65

7469 71

82

6572

7059

878680

87

6578

5966

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

QuantitativeAnforderungen

KognitiveAnforderungen

EmotionaleAnforderungen

Emotionenverbergen

SensorischeAnforderungen

Skala

Inte

rne

Kon

sist

enz

(Cro

nbac

h's

alph

a * 1

00)

Denmark total (N=1858) long quest.Denmark total (N=1858) middle quest.Germany total (N=2561) long quest.Germany total (N=2561) middle quest.

Cronbach‘s alpha: (we did ICC too)partly > 0.8 (ISO), partly > 0.7• (1) short: alpha lower• (2) D like DK


ex: Validity

anforderungen

,32ANFEM

e3,85

ANFKO

e2,25

ANFQU

e1

,35

einfluss u.entwicklung

,39EINVERe10

,55EINBEDe9

,60EINDEVe8

,23EINEINe6

,62

,74

,47

,48

soziale bez.führung

,39UNTSOZ

e15,52

UNTFUE

e14,23

UNTROL

e12,38

UNTVOR

e11

,63,72,48,61

,21UNTFEE

e16

,46

,32UNTGEM

e18

,56

,31

outcome2

,75CBI e22

,57KOGSTR e24

,36SWLS100 e25

,87

,75-,60

-,41

-,22

d2

,76VERSTR e23

,49WAI100 e20

,87

-,70

,68

outcome 1

1,00JOBSAT1,00 e19

d1

-,15

-,16

,47

,56 ,92

,45,34

,69

,17

,07

,48

,30,36

Content validity: questionnaire verycomprehensive(broad).Construct validity(SEM): dimensions(mostly) good to separate / distinguishCriterion validity: relations to outcomes as postulated (somescales omittable)


ex: comparision of professions(sensitivity, Diag. power)

Skala: Emotionale Anforderungen

52486974707670

585669

474947 555574

55

0102030405060708090

100

Fertigu

ngTec

hn. B

erufe

Verwalt

ung,

hoch

Verwalt

ung,

niedri

g

Ordnun

g / S

icherh

eit

Schrift

. /Kun

st

Pflege

pers.

Rettun

gsdie

nst

Gesun

dh., R

est

Prieste

rPfar

rer

Erzieh

ung,

Rest

DL, Res

tSon

stige

Berufsgruppe (KdB 92)

Mitt

elw

ert (

95%

Kon

fiden

zint

erva

ll)

Wert Berufsgruppe

Durchschnitt gesamt

We (COPSOQ) find the differences, that are expected /known.Some parameters are profession specific, some not.(Scales measure at least something similar to what they should)

Emotional demands: (also) profession specific,Only partly enterprise specific!Can be good or bad in every profession, but someprofs have a systematic advantage /disadvantage.


ex: comparision of professions(sensitivity, Diag. power)

Skala: Gemeinschaftsgefühl

78 73 74 75 7973 697579767576 74 74 737874

0102030405060708090

100

Fertigu

ng

Techn

. Beru

fe

Verwalt

ung,

hoch

Verwalt

ung,

niedri

g

Ordnun

g / S

icherh

eit

Schrift

. /Kun

stPfle

gepe

rs.

Rettun

gsdie

nst

Gesun

dh., R

est

Prieste

rPfar

rer

Erzieh

ung,

Rest

DL, Res

tSon

stige

Berufsgruppe (KdB 92)

Mitt

elw

ert (

95%

Kon

fiden

zint

erva

ll)

Wert BerufsgruppeDurchschnitt gesamt

Sense of community: not profession specific,but enterprise specific!Can be good or bad in every profession, depending on the enterprise


Summary measurement qualities

• Objectivity: ok• Practicability: (enterprises and probands) ok; shorter is better!• Acceptance: ok; shorter is better! Anonymity• Sensitivity: ok• Validity (content, construct, criterion): mostly ok• Reliability: depending on coeff. (Cronbach or ICC) and level (0.7,

0.8) and Scale length• Generalisability: age, sex, ok; occupation: differences but not

systematic• Diagnostical power: ok, plausible results

• More in project report (German), English article and: www.copsoq.de


Conflict of interests: psychometric properties and practicability

Shortened version:Keep: broad content +

Keep: Intern. comparison +Impr.:Practicability +Impr.: Acceptance +

Long version:Better: Reliabiliy (Scales) +

Better: Validity (+)Better for ISO


German COPSOQ- shortened standardversionDemands

- Quantitative demands- Emotional demands- Demands for hiding emotions- Work - privacy conflict

Influence and development- Influence at work- Degree of freedom at work- Possibilities of development- Meaning of work- Workplace commitment

Interpersonal relations and leadership- Predictability- Role clarity- Role conflicts- Quality of leadership- Social support- Feedback- Social relations- Sense of community-Mobbing

Strain (effects, outcomes)- Job satisfaction- Intention to leave- General health- Burnout- Cognitive stress- Satisfaction with life

Further parameters- Job insecurity

Supplementary scales- conflicts with clients- shift work- teacher items-…

Standard: 87 Itemsca. 15-20 MinMax 100 Itemsca. 20 Min


Use of COPSOQ

Screening tool (ISO 10075-3, level 2, not „holy“)

• Measurement as starting point for discussion processin organisations („Diagnosis“)

• Interpretation and defining priorities forimprovement actions (evtl. with external support) on base of solid data (incl. profession-specific referencedata)

• Actions and documentation („Intervention“)

• Evaluation (2. Measurement)


Process – risk assessment

Results to Enterprises, Organisations

Survey T1 = Diagnosis

Performance of improvement actions

Survey T2 = Evaluation

report

InterpretationDefining improvement fieldsand strategies /actions

Analyses: actions and survey results(T1, T2)Evaluation: Promising actions?

12

3

4

5

6


Process – risk assessment

Results in Enterprises, Organisations

Survey T1 = Diagnose

Performance of improvement actions

Survey T2 = Evaluation

report

InterpretationDefining improvement fieldsand strategies

Analyses: actions and survey results(T1, T2)Evaluation: Promising actions?

12

3

4

5

6



IV. Formation of database in cooperation

science - enterprises/organisations


Cooperation model: science -enterprises/organisations

Data base:Profession specific

reference values

FFASEnterprise 1. materials(online Q, p&p Q-sets)

2. Performance survey

P1

P2

P3

3. Q or online-data

4. Data analysis

5. Comparison with reference dataInclusion in database

6. report + CD(4 weeks)

7. Improvement actions


benefits

– Single employee• Direct feedback: my job situation vs average (open to everybody)

• Improvement working situation after survey (hope)

– enterprise• Solid basic data to psychosocial factors

• External benchmark (with similar occupations / enterprises)

• Internal benchmarks (0f sub-units)

– science• growing database on profession specific psychoscocial factors at work

(advantage against self-service CD etc)


Example online FB (open for eb)

75

2575

100

Quantitative Demands =B1_1 – B1_4 = (100 + 75 + 75 + 25) / 4 = 69


online FB: Individual Feedback (pers. result)

Quantitative demandsMN = 69, Reference = 57Emotional demandsMN = 42, Reference = 63

For all 25 scales.Print, save or delete.

6957

4263


Report enterprises (4 Weeks aftersurvey)

– 1. Text: • background, aims, performance survey

• Interpretation of most important results of enterprise

– 2. Doku Questionnaire COPSOQ

– 3. Doku text in open questions


Report enterprises (4 Weeks aftersurvey)

– 4. Graphs (each scale: set à 25 Graphs)

• External benchmark: comparison with other

professions and profession specific reference data

– 5. Graphs (each scale, set à 25 Graphs)

• Internal benchmark: comparison of sub-units (defined

by enterprise before)


Skala: Führungsqualität

47

656153 50

5748

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Abt. 1 Abt. 2 Abt. 3 Abt. 4 Abt. 5 Abt. 6 Abt. 7

Einheit

Mitt

elw

ert (

95%

Kon

fiden

zint

erva

ll)

Wert Abteilung Befragte insgesamt

Example internal comparison

For each of the 25 scales

Scale: quality of leadershipBars: 7 subunitsRed line: average enterprise


Example enternal comparison, reference values

Scale: Quantitative demands

63

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

docs hospital xEnterprise / Profession

Mea

n (9

5% C

onfid

ence

inte

rval

)

value profession

What can we do with a single mean value?Internal comparison ok, but else?We have no objective cutoff or „Fixed point in the universe“.We use comparisons as „our best chance available“


Example enternal comparison, reference valuesScale: Quantitative demands

52 54 56636060565147

6348

585972

64605348 52

6047

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Manufac

ters

tech: e

ngine

ers

tech: te

chnic

ians

admin,

high

admin,

low

protecti

on, s

ecuri

ty

autho

rs, ar

tists

Docs, h

ospit

al

Docs, o

cc. h

ealth

nurse

s"re

d cros

s"ph

ysiothera

p.

other

health

care

socia

l worke

rstea

chers

priests

cath.

priest,

prot.

other

educ.

sewag

e etc.

servi

ce ot

her

docs

hosp

ital x

Profession (KdB 92, German class. System of occ.)

Mea

n (9

5% C

onfid

ence

inte

rval

)

value profession

mean COPSOQ

overall mean

value enterprise

interpretation: higher than overall meanbutlower(better) than profession specific mean

reference value (profession specific)

But: normative power of facts! Do we want to accept reality as normal?


Example enternal comparison, reference valuesCopenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI): "personal burnout"

4941 42 47

37 41 42 39 4542 4137433741 36 35464042

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Manufac

ters

tech: e

ngine

ers

tech: te

chnic

ians

admin,

high

admin,

low

protecti

on, s

ecuri

tyau

thors,

artis

tsDocs

, hos

pital

Docs, o

cc. h

ealth

nurse

s"re

d cros

s"ph

ysiothera

p.

other

health

care

socia

l worke

rstea

chers

priests

cath.

priest,

prot.

other

educ.

sewag

e etc.

servi

ce ot

her

enter

prise

, tech

Profession (KdB 92, German class. System of occ.)

Mea

n (9

5% C

onfid

ence

inte

rval

) value profession

mean COPSOQ

overall mean

value enterprise (engineers, technicians)

interpretation: slightly higher (worse) than overall meanbutmuch higher than normal in this profession (: no excuse)

reference value (profession specific)

Reference values as interpretation helpersExpecially necessary when aspects are structurally „profession- dependent“


Ermittlung psych. Belastungen

V. Actual situation and future


Present and future

– FFAS: Work like a „survey service agency“, less like a

researcher

– Anyway: data base growing, 5.500 actual, ca. 8000 end

of year -> analyses possibilities are growing

– Big project with teachers/schools in BW coming

(probably biggest teacher study ever?! N=110.000

teachers, 4300 schools)


Present and future

– When projects with scientific funding:

• International comparison (EU?!)

• 2nd round with enterprises from main study 2004

• Inclusion of more „blue collar“ data and up to now „blind fields“ in

database, „sponsoring“ of specific enterprises (for free surveys)

• Comparison COPSOQ - ERI – FIT (convergent validity)

• More analyses with existing data


Thanks for your attention!

[email protected]

(nearly) everthing to the German COPSOQ: www.copsoq.de

COPSOQ: The German situation€¦ · COPSOQ = COpenhagen PsychoSOcial Questionnaire Autoren: TS...

Documents

Transcript of COPSOQ: The German situation€¦ · COPSOQ = COpenhagen PsychoSOcial Questionnaire Autoren: TS...