Work characteristics and occupational health: validation and proposal of a shortened version of the Work Design Questionnaire
Abstract
Interest in the study of work characteristics to explain how an individual's relationship with the work environment can lead to maladaptive responses has taken on renewed importance in the light of increasing concern for the development of healthy organizations and organizational diversity. This study aims to develop a shortened version of the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ) with a view to facilitating its use and interpretation. The psychometric properties of this shorter questionnaire were tested in a multi-sectoral sample of workers in Spain, with due consideration given to the gender measurement invariance. For this purpose, we applied the questionnaire to a sample of 500 workers and analyzed the relationship between the answers provided to WDQ and specific occupational health variables (satisfaction, well-being and emotional exhaustion). Results showed adequate reliability and criterion-oriented validity for the shortened version of the WDQ, that is, the WDQ18-S, as well as evidence of factorial invariance across gender. We then discuss the results and their implications for the application of the WDQ in further research and the field of occupational health and psychosocial risks prevention.
Downloads
References
Aguado, D., Andrés, J. C., García-Izquierdo, A. L., & Rodríguez, J. (2019). LinkedIn “Big Four”: Job performance validation in the ICT sector. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35, 53-64. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a7
Alcover, C. M., Guglielmi, D., Depolo, M., & Mazzetti, G. (2021). “Aging-and-Tech Job Vulnerability”: A proposed framework on the dual impact of aging and AI, robotics, and automation among older workers. Organizational Psychology Review, 11(2), 175–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386621992105
Azañedo, C. M., Fernández-Abascal, E. G., & Barraca, J. (2017). The short form of the VIA Inventory of Strengths. Psicothema, 29(2), 254–260. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.225
Bargsted, M., Ramírez-Vielma, R., & Yeves, J. (2019). Professional self-efficacy and job satisfaction: The mediator role of work design. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35, 157-163. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a18
Batz-Barbarich, C., Tay, L., Kuykendall, L., & Cheung, H. K. (2018). A Meta-Analysis of Gender Differences in Subjective Well-Being: Estimating Effect Sizes and Associations With Gender Inequality. Psychological Science, 29(9), 1491-1503. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797618774796
Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (2001). Response Styles in Marketing Research: A Cross-National Investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.2.143.18840
Bayona, J. A., Caballer, A., & Peiró, J. M. (2015). The work design questionnaire: Spanish version and validation. Revista de Psicología Del Trabajo y de Las Organizaciones, 31(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpto.2015.06.001
Bertolino, M., Angel, V., & Steiner, D. D. (2011). Questionnaire sur les caracteristiques du poste (QCP), traduction du WDQ de Morgeson et Humphrey (2006). https://www.psychologie.uni-frankfurt.de/56107021/Bertolino__Angel____Steiner_French_version_of_WDQ.pdf
Borges-Andrade, J. E., Peixoto, A. L. A., Queiroga, F., & Pérez-Nebra, A. R. (2019). Adaptation of the Work Design Questionnaire to Brazil. Revista Psicologia Organizações e Trabalho, 19(3), 720–731. https://doi.org/10.17652/rpot/2019.3.16837
Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Sage.
Castaño, A. M., Fontanil, Y., & García-Izquierdo, A. L. (2019). Why Can’t I Become a Manager?—A Systematic Review of Gender Stereotypes and Organizational Discrimination. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(10), 1813. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16101813
Castaño, AM. & García-Izquierdo, AL. (2018). Validity evidence of the Organizational Justice Scale in Spain. Psicothema, 30(3), 344-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2017.415
Castaño, AM., Fontanil, Y., & García-Izquierdo, AL.(2020). Gendered Beliefs in STEM Undergraduates: A Comparative Analysis of Fuzzy Rating versus Likert Scales. Sustainability, 12(15), 6227. 10.3390/su12156227
Chen, F.F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fi t indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834.
Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Cifre, E., Vera, M., & Signani, F. (2015). Women and men at work: analyzing occupational stress and well-being from a gender perspective. Revista Puertorriqueña de Psicología, 26(2), 172-191. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5891769
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Academic Press.
Cox, T., & Griffiths, A. J. (1996). The assessment of psychosocial hazards at work. In M. J. Schabracq, J. A. M. Winnubst, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of Work and Health Psychology (pp. 127-146). Wiley and Sons.
DeBode, J. D., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Walker, A. G. (2013). Assessing Ethical Organizational Culture: Refinement of a Scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(4), 460-484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886313500987
DeSimone, J. A., & Harms, P. D. (2018). Dirty data: The effects of screening respondents who provide low-quality data in survey research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(5), 559–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9514-9
Diedenhofen, B., & Musch, J. (2016). cocron: A web interface and R package for the statistical comparison of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. International Journal of Internet Science, 11(1), 51-60. Retrived from https://www.ijis.net/ijis11_1/ijis11_1_diedenhofen_and_musch.pdf and http://comparingcronbachalphas.org/ a web interface to compare Cronbach alphas
Ellis, P. D. (2009). Effect size calculators. http://www.polyu.edu.hk/mm/effectsizefaqs/calculator/calculator.html
Elosúa, P. (2005). Evaluación progresiva de la invarianza factorial entre las versiones original y adaptada de una escala de autoconcepto [Progressive evaluation of factor invariance between the original and adapted versions of a self-concept scale]. Psicothema, 17(2), 356-362. http://www.psicothema.com/psicothema.asp?id=3112
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Fernández, M., Ramírez, R., Sánchez, J. C., Bargsted, M., Polo, J. D., & Ruiz, M. A. (2017). Spanish-Language Adaptation of Morgeson and Humphrey’s Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 20, e28, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2017.24
García-Izquierdo, AL., Fernández, C., & Arrondo, R. (2018). Gender Diversity on Boards of Directors and Remuneration Committees: The Influence on Listed Companies in Spain. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01351
García-Izquierdo, AL, Ponsoda-Gil, V., & Aguado, D. (2019). New Insights on Technology and Assessment: Introduction to JWOP Special Issue. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35, 49-52. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a6
Gartzia, L., Pizarro, J., & Baniandres, J. (2018). Emotional Androgyny: A Preventive Factor of Psychosocial Risks at Work? Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02144
Goldberg, D., & Williams, P. (1996). Cuestionario de Salud General GHQ (General Health Questionnaire). Guía para el usuario de las distintas versiones [General Health Questionnaire GHQ (General Health Questionnaire). User’s guide for the different versions]. Masson.
Gorgievski-Duijvesteijn, M., Peeters, P., Rietzschel, E. F., & Bipp, T. (2016). Reliability and validity of the Dutch translation of the work design questionnaire. Gedrag En Organisatie : Tijdschrift Voor Sociale, Arbeids- En Organisatie-Psychologie, 29(3), 273–301. http://hdl.handle.net/1765/94861
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332–1356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332
International Labor Organization. (2020). Decent work. https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/decent-work/lang--en/index.htm
Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey Research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 537–567. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Leka, S., & Cox, T. (2008). PRIMA-EF - Guidance on the European Framework for Psychosocial Risk Management: A resource for employers and worker representatives. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/occupational_health/publications/PRIMA-EF%20Guidance_9.pdf
Liu, M., & Wronski, L. (2018). Examining Completion Rates in Web Surveys via Over 25,000 Real-World Surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 36(1), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317695581
Lloret-Segura, S., Ferreres-Traver, A., Hernández-Baeza, A., & Tomás-Marco, I. (2014). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: Una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada [Exploratory Item Factor Analysis: A practical guide revised and up-dated]. Anales de Psicología / Annals of Psychology, 30(3), 1151-1169. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361
López-Araújo, B., & Osca, A. (2010). Influencia de algunas variables organizacionales sobre la salud y la accidentabilidad laboral [Influence of some organizational variables on occupational health and accident rate]. Annals of Psychology, 26(1), 89-94. https://revistas.um.es/analesps/article/view/92001
MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common Method Bias in Marketing: Causes, Mechanisms, and Procedural Remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001
Marcus, B., Bosnjak, M., Lindner, S., Pilischenko, S., & Schütz, A. (2007). Compensating for Low Topic Interest and Long Surveys: A Field Experiment on Nonresponse in Web Surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 25(3), 372-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439307297606
Meliá, J. L., & Peiró, J. M. (1989). El Cuestionario de satisfacción S10/12: Estructura Factorial, Fiabilidad y Validez [Satisfaction Quewstionnaire S10/12: Factor Structure, Reliability and Validity]. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 4(11), 179-187. https://journals.copmadrid.org/jwop/art/00ac8ed3b4327bdd4ebbebcb2ba10a00
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321
Muñiz, J., & Fonseca-Pedrero, E. (2019). Diez pasos para la construcción de un test [Ten steps in test construction]. Picothema, 31(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.291
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Muthén & Muthén.
Osca, A., & López-Araújo, B. (2020). Work stress, personality and occupational accidents: Should we expect differences between men and women? Safety Science, 124, 104582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104582
Parker, S. K. (2014). Beyond Motivation: Job and Work Design for Development, Health, Ambidexterity, and More. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 661–691. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115208
Parker, S. K., Morgeson, F., Johns, G. (2017). 100 years of work design research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 403-420. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000106
Peiró, J. M., Bayona, J. A., Caballer, A., & Di Fabio, A. (2020). Importance of work characteristics affects job performance: The mediating role of individual dispositions on the work design-performance relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, 109808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109808
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539-569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Purvanova, R. K. & Muros, J. P. (2010). Gender differences in burnout: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2), 168-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.006
Ramis, Y., Viladrich, C., Sousa, C., & Jannes, C. (2015). Exploring the factorial structure of the Sport Anxiety Scale-2: Invariance across language, gender, age and type of sport. Psicothema, 27(2), 174-181. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2014.263
Rivera-Torres, P., Araque-Padilla, R. A., & Montero-Simó, M. J. (2013). Job Stress Across Gender: The Importance of Emotional and Intellectual Demands and Social Support in Women. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(1), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10010375
Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008
Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Grau, R., Schaufeli, W. B., & Peiró, J. M. (2000). Desde el “burnout” al “engagement”: ¿una nueva perspectiva? [From “burnout” to “engagement”: A new perspective?]. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 16(2), 117-134. http://www.copmadrid.org/web/articulos/2000162/trabajo
Schaufeli, W. B., & Dierendonck, D. V. (1993). The construct validity of two burnout measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(7), 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140703
Stegmann, S., Dick, R. van, Ullrich, J., Charalambous, J., Menzel, B., Egold, N., & Wu, T. T.-C. (2010). Der Work Design Questionnaire. Zeitschrift Für Arbeits- Und Organisationspsychologie A&O, 54(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000002
Sureda, E., Mancho, J., & Sesé, A. (2018). Psychosocial risk factors, organizational conflict and job satisfactionin Health professionals: A SEM model. Anales de Psicología / Annals of Psychology, 35(1), 106-115. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.35.1.297711
Copyright (c) 2022 Servicio de Publicaciones, University of Murcia (Spain)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The works published in this journal are subject to the following terms:
1. The Publications Service of the University of Murcia (the publisher) retains the property rights (copyright) of published works, and encourages and enables the reuse of the same under the license specified in paragraph 2.
© Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Murcia, 2022
2. The works are published in the online edition of the journal under a Creative Commons Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 4.0 (legal text). You can copy, use, distribute, transmit and publicly display, provided that: i) you cite the author and the original source of publication (journal, editorial and URL of the work), ii) are not used for commercial purposes, iii ) mentions the existence and specifications of this license.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
3. Conditions of self-archiving. Is allowed and encouraged the authors to disseminate electronically pre-print versions (version before being evaluated and sent to the journal) and / or post-print (version reviewed and accepted for publication) of their works before publication, as it encourages its earliest circulation and diffusion and thus a possible increase in its citation and scope between the academic community. RoMEO Color: Green.
