Cited by 323Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorHealthcare Education and Workforce IssuesWorkaholism, burnout, and well-being

Individual job redesign: job crafting interventions in Healthcare

Open access
Gordon, Heather J., Demerouti, Evangelia, Le Blanc, Pascale M., Bakker, Arnold B., Bipp, Tanja, Verhagen, Marc A.M.T.·2018·Journal of Vocational Behavior

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.002

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Results were comparable to the first group who received a generalised job crafting intervention, and no variation in positive study outcomes was reported between the two job crafting treatment groups.

    “Results were comparable to the first group who received a generalised job crafting intervention and therefore no variation in positive study outcomes was reported between the two job crafting treatment groups.56”

    From Workplace interventions to improve well-being and reduce burnout for nurses, physicians and allied healthcare professionals: a systematic review. (2023) · cites this paper as [56]

    Both interventions had positive outcomes, but §3.2 reports a variation the claim denies: task and contextual performance improved significantly in Study 1, whereas neither showed a significant intervention effect in Study 2. The paper compared each intervention with its own control group, not the two treatment groups directly; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Both Gordon et al and Gregory et al implemented waitlist style control groups, and the final organisational peer support study (Wahl et al) did not implement a control group at all.

    “Both Gordon et al56 and Gregory et al26 also implemented waitlist style control groups and the final organisational peer support study (Wahl et al52) did not implement a control group at all.”
  • Participants in the individual job crafting group in Gordon et al reported improved work engagement (UWES) as well as significantly lowered levels of emotional exhaustion (OLBI) compared with the waitlist control group.

    “Participants in the individual job crafting group reported improved work engagement (UWES) as well as significantly lowered levels of EE (OLBI) compared with the waitlist control group.56”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Biron, C., Karanika-Murray, M., & Copper, C. L. (Eds.). (2012). Improving organizational interventions for stress and well-being: Addressing process and context. London, UK: Routledge.
  2. Ghitulescu, B. E. (2007). Shaping tasks and relationships at work: Examining the antecedents and consequences of employee job crafting (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://etd.library.pitt.edu/ETD/available/etd-12112006-131255/unrestricted/ghitulescube_etd.pdf.
  3. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3 rd ed.). New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill.
  4. Pignata, S., Biron, C., & Dollard, M. F. (2014). Managing psychosocial risks in the workplace: Prevention and intervention. In M. Peeters, J. de Jonge, & T. W. Taris (Eds.). People at work: An introduction to contemporary work psychology (pp. 393-413). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gordon, H. J., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P. M., Bakker, A. B., Bipp, T., & Verhagen, M. A. M. T.
Affiliations
  • Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
  • Lingnan University (HK)
  • University of Würzburg (DE)
  • Diakonessenhuis hospital (NL)
Corresponding author
Gordon, Heather J.
Venue
Journal of Vocational Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-02
Volume
104
Pages
98-114
ISSN
0001-8791 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2735657193
Cited by
323
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
37.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Vocational Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Commons - Lingnan (Lingnan University) (submittedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Leadership and Management › Healthcare Education and Workforce Issues
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Workaholism, burnout, and well-being
Keywords
job crafting, job redesign, job crafting intervention, healthcare workers, specialist physicians, nurses, well-being, work engagement, burnout, employee performance, adaptive performance, task performance, contextual performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review