The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measurement quality and validity of the “need for recovery scale”
Open accessAbstract
The “need for recovery scale” is suggested as an operationalisation for the measurement of (early symptoms of) fatigue at work. Definition of and background on the concept of need for recovery are briefly discussed. Details about scale construction are summarised. Correlations with other relevant measurement scales on fatigue at work are presented to validate the operationalisation claim, as are early results on predictive validity. A study is presented that further investigates the measurement quality and validity of the scale. The data used in this study were collected by Occupational Health Services for 68 775 workers during the period 1996–2000. Comparing the measurement quality of subgroups (Cronbach’s alpha) differing in terms of age class, sex, and education level, the general applicability of the scale was shown. The validity of the scale was studied by analysing its association with psychosocial risk factors. Multiple regression analyses of need for recovery were performed on individual and department level data, using 10 psychosocial job characteristics as independent variables. The two most important factors in the explanation of variance at the individual level were also dominant at the department level: pace and amount of work, and emotional workload. The percentage of explained variance was higher at the department level than at the individual level, and increased with department size. Results suggest that the need for recovery scale is an adequate scale, both for applications at the individual and at the group (department/organisation) level.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Theory and Procedure of Scale Analysis: With Applications in Political Research
Mokken, R. J. (1971) · doi:10.1515/9783110813203 · Cited by 1,120
Veldhoven, M. V., Jonge, J. D., Broersen, S., Kompier, M., & Meijman, T. (2002) · Work & Stress · doi:10.1080/02678370210166399 · Cited by 246
Self-citation
Cited by
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204 · Cited by 2,133
Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. (2010) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.005 · Cited by 484
Job demands–resources model in the context of recovery: Testing recovery experiences as mediators
Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., Siltaloppi, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2011) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2010.524411 · Cited by 282
de Croon, E. M., Sluiter, J. K., Blonk, R. W. B., Broersen, J. P. J., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (2004) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.442 · Cited by 252
A taxonomy of fatigue concepts and their relation to hearing loss.
Hornsby, B. W. Y., Naylor, G., & Bess, F. H. (2016) · Ear & Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000289 · Cited by 188
Metadata
- Authors
- van Veldhoven, M., & Broersen, S.
- Venue
- Occupational and Environmental Medicine
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2003-06
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- suppl 1
- Pages
- i3-i9
- ISSN
- 0007-1072 (ISSN-L)
- 1351-0711
- 1470-7926
- OpenAlex
- W2170059952
- Cited by
- 416
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measurement quality and validity of the “need for recovery scale”. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/oem.60.suppl_1.i3
- The paper
- van Veldhoven, M., & Broersen, S. (2003). Measurement quality and validity of the “need for recovery scale”. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.60.suppl_1.i3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.