copsoq: the german situation€¦ · copsoq = copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire autoren: ts...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 2
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
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 3
COPSOQ: The German situation
I. Background
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 4
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)
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 5
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)
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 6
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
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 7
COPSOQ: The German situation
II. COPSOQ: Adaptation and translation into
German
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 8
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)
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 9
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
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 10
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”)
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 11
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
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 12
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)
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 13
COPSOQ: The German situation
III. Validation study: psychometric qualities of
questionnaire and scales – some examples
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 14
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
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 15
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)
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 16
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.
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 17
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
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 18
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
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 19
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
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 20
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
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 21
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)
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 22
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
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 23
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
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 24
COPSOQ: The German situation
IV. Formation of database in cooperation
science - enterprises/organisations
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 25
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
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 26
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)
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 27
Example online FB (open for eb)
75
2575
100
Quantitative Demands =B1_1 – B1_4 = (100 + 75 + 75 + 25) / 4 = 69
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 28
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
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 29
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
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 30
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)
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 31
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
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 32
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“
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 33
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?
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 34
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“
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 35
Ermittlung psych. Belastungen
V. Actual situation and future
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 36
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)
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 37
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
Nübling, Copenhagen 6.9.2007 38
Thanks for your attention!
(nearly) everthing to the German COPSOQ: www.copsoq.de