CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,187Workplace Health and Well-beingPsychometric Methodologies and TestingOccupational Health and Burnout

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire

Open access
Pejtersen, Jan Hyld, Kristensen, Tage Søndergård, Borg, Vilhelm, Bjorner, Jakob Bue·2010·Scandinavian Journal of Public Health
DOI 10.1177/1403494809349858
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

AIMS: The aim of the present paper is to present the development of the second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ II). METHODS: The development of COPSOQ II took place in five main steps: (1) We considered practical experience from the use of COPSOQ I, in particular feedback from workplace studies where the questionnaire had been used; (2) All scales concerning workplace factors in COPSOQ I were analyzed for differential item functioning (DIF) with regard to gender, age and occupational status; (3) A test version of COPSOQ II including new scales and items was developed and tested in a representative sample of working Danes between 20 and 59 years of age. In all, 3,517 Danish employees participated in the study. The overall response rate was 60.4%; (4) Based on psychometric analyses, the final questionnaire was developed; and (5) Criteria-related validity of the new scales was tested. RESULTS: The development of COPSOQ II resulted in a questionnaire with 41 scales and 127 items. New scales on values at the workplace were introduced including scales on Trust, Justice and Social inclusiveness. Scales on Variation, Work pace, Recognition, Work-family conflicts and items on offensive behaviour were also added. New scales regarding health symptoms included: Burnout, Stress, Sleeping troubles and Depressive symptoms. In general, the new scales showed good criteria validity. All in all, 57% of the items of COPSOQ I were retained in COPSOQ II. CONCLUSIONS: The COPSOQ I concept has been further developed and new validated scales have been included.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1403494809349858

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 50 references

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. 2002, Scand J Public Health Supplement, 59, 41
  2. 2006, GMS Psycho-Social-Medicine, 3, 1
  3. 2005, Archivos de prevencion de riesgos laborales, 8, 18
  4. 2007, Statistics in Transition, 8, 441
  5. 2009, Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 417
  6. 1986, The Danish job classification (in Danish)
  7. 2010, Scand J Public Health, 38, 137
  8. 2001, J Affect Disorders, 66, 159
  9. 2007, Violence, bullying and harassment in the workplace
  10. 2007, User’s manual for the SF-36v2 Health Survey
  11. 1983, The managed heart - commercialization of human ffeling
  12. 2010, Scand J Public Health, 38, 8
  13. 2010, Scand J Public Health, 38, 90
  14. 2010, Scand J Public Health, 38, 42

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Pejtersen, J. H., Kristensen, T. S., Borg, V., & Bjorner, J. B.
Affiliations
  • National Research Centre for the Working Environment (DK)
  • National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark
ORCID
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2009-12-18
Volume
38
Issue
3_suppl
Pages
8-24
ISSN
  • 1403-4948 (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-1905
DOI
10.1177/1403494809349858
OpenAlex
W2141897532
Cited by
1,187
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 61 · 2025: 77 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 106 · 2022: 105 · 2021: 119 · 2020: 97 · 2019: 83 · 2018: 74 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 70 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 54 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 44
FWCI
50.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational Health and Burnout
Keywords
Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire, psychosocial work environment, questionnaire development, differential item functioning, workplace values, trust, justice, social inclusion, work pace, recognition, work-family conflict, offensive behavior, burnout, stress, sleep disorders, depressive symptoms, health symptoms
MeSH terms
Adult, Burnout, Professional, Conflict, Psychological, Denmark, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sleep Wake Disorders, Social Class, Stress, Psychological, Reproducibility of Results, Occupational Health, Workload, Workplace

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