CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychometric properties of telepressure measures in the workplace and private life among French-speaking employees

Semaan, Raphaël, Gamaiunova, Liudmila, Teixeira, Patricia Pereira, Nater, Urs M., Heinzer, Raphaël, Haba-Rubio, José, Vlerick, Peter, Cambier, Ruben, Gomez, Patrick·2025·BMC Psychology
DOI 10.1186/s40359-025-02616-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Workplace telepressure and private life telepressure refer to the preoccupation with and the urge to respond quickly to electronic messages from people at work or in private life, respectively. We aimed to adapt and validate workplace and private life telepressure measures in French and to explore their nomological networks and relationships with psychological health and wellbeing. Methods: Participants were recruited via flyers, local press, and social media to complete two online surveys. Participants had to be French-speaking employees working in Switzerland and regularly using information and communication technologies for work purposes. The sample included 347 employees (200 females, 146 males, one nonbinary individual; mean age: 36.8 years) who completed both surveys. The first questionnaire assessed sociodemographic characteristics and the workplace and private life telepressure measures. The second questionnaire, which was administered approximately two weeks later, assessed complementary sociodemographic characteristics, nomologicals (five technostress creators, workaholism, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and mindfulness), measures of psychological health and wellbeing (depression, anxiety, stress, and psychological detachment from work), and the two telepressure measures. Results: Both telepressure measures exhibited strong psychometric properties, including validity, reliability, and measurement invariance across age, gender, and time. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the two-factor model (preoccupation and urge factors) provided a better fit than did the one-factor model for both measures. Correlation analyses revealed that both telepressure measures were significantly positively associated with techno-invasion, techno-complexity, techno-insecurity, workaholism, and neuroticism and negatively associated with mindfulness. However, only workplace telepressure was significantly associated with techno-overload, and neither telepressure measure was significantly associated with techno-uncertainty. Structural equation modeling showed that workplace telepressure significantly predicted stress, anxiety, depression, and psychological detachment from work, whereas private life telepressure significantly predicted stress, anxiety, and psychological detachment from work, but not depression. Most effects were significantly greater for workplace telepressure than for private life telepressure. Conclusions: This study confirms the validity of the workplace telepressure and private life telepressure measures for use in French-speaking populations and contributes to our understanding of the role of these two constructs in employees' psychological health and wellbeing.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40359-025-02616-0

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 82

  1. Day A, Cook R, Jones-Chick R, Myers V. Are your smart technologies killing it or killing you? Developing a research agenda for workplace ICT and worker wellbeing. In: Kelloway EK, Cooper C, editors. A research agenda for workplace stress and wellbeing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; 2021. p. 91–118. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789905021.00014. · DOI
  2. Messenger J, Vargas OL, Gschwind L, Boehmer S, Vermeylen G, Wilkens M. Working anytime, anywhere: the effects on the world of work. Publications Office of the European Union Luxembourg Eurofound. 2017. https://doi.org/10.2806/372726. · DOI
  3. Americans stay connected to work on weekends, vacation, and even when out sick. Am Psychol Assoc Press Room; 2013. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/09/connected-work. Accessed 13 May 2024.
  4. Mazmanian M, Orlikowski WJ, Yates J. The autonomy paradox: the implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Org Sci. 2013;24(5):1337–57. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0806. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Hu X, Park Y, Day A, Barber LK. Time to disentangle the information and communication technology (ICT) constructs: developing a taxonomy around ICT use for occupational health research. Occup Health Sci. 2021;5(1):217–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-021-00085-6. · DOI
  6. Vanden Abeele MM. Digital wellbeing as a dynamic construct. Comm Theory. 2021;31(4):932–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaa024. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Ohly S, Latour A. Work-related smartphone use and well-being in the evening. J Person Psychol. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000114. · DOI
  8. Barber LK, Santuzzi AM. Telepressure and college student employment: the costs of staying connected across social contexts. Stress Health. 2017;33(1):14–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2668. · DOI
  9. Barber LK, Conlin AL, Santuzzi AM. Workplace telepressure and work–life balance outcomes: the role of work recovery experiences. Stress Health. 2019;35(3):350–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2864. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Page KJ, Nastasi A, Voyles E. Did you get that thing I sent you? Mediating effects of strain and work-family conflict on the telepressure and burnout relationship. Stress Health. 2021;37(5):928–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3052. · DOI
  11. Gillet N, Morin AJ, Fernet C, Austin S, Huyghebaert-Zouaghi T. Telepressure and recovery experiences among remote and onsite workers. J Person Psychol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000303. · DOI
  12. Pfaffinger KF, Reif JA, Spieß E. When and why telepressure and technostress creators impair employee well-being. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2022;28(2):958–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2020.1846376. · DOI
  13. Cianci J, Weibel D, Elfering A. Measuring work demands and resources of digitalisation: the ICT resources and stressors scale. Swiss Psychol Open. 2024;4(1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.48350/198511. · DOI
  14. Reimann L-E, Binnewies C, Ozimek P, Loose S. I do not want to miss a thing! consequences of employees’ workplace fear of missing out for ICT use, well-being, and recovery experiences. Behav Sci. 2024;14(1): 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14010008. · DOI
  15. Zinke J, Vahle-Hinz T, Hoppe A. A longitudinal study on ICT workload in the extended stressor-detachment model: testing moderated mediation models for extended work availability and workplace telepressure. Work Stress. 2024;38(1):73–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2023.2239179. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Cambier R, Derks D, Vlerick P. Detachment from work: a diary study on telepressure, smartphone use and empathy. Psychol Belg. 2019;59(1):227. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.477. · DOI
  17. أبوسيف, ر. أثـر ضغط التواصل مع العمل عن بُعد على الرفاهية النفسيَّة لأعضاء هيئة التدريس بجامعة الأزهر من خلال الدور الوسيط للصلابة النفسيَّة المجلة العربية للإدارة 2022;42(4):359–380. https://doi.org/10.21608/aja.2022.273281. Arabic. [English translation] The impact of the pressure of staying connected to work during telework on the psychological wellbeing of faculty members at Al-Azhar University through the mediating role of psychological resilience. · DOI
  18. Shakhova Z. Deconnection strategies–a solution to decrease workplace telepressure and increase psychological detachment. [Dissertation]. The Netherlands: University of Tilburg; 2022.
  19. Kao K-Y, Chi N-W, Thomas CL, Lee H-T, Wang Y-F. Linking ICT availability demands to burnout and work-family conflict: the roles of workplace telepressure and dispositional self-regulation. J Psychol. 2020;154(5):325–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2020.1745137. · DOI
  20. Dose É, Desrumaux P, Rekik M. Télépression au travail, relation entre l’utilisation de la messagerie électronique au travail et les échanges leader-membres : rôles de la reconnaissance et de la charge de travail. Travail Hum. 2019;82(2):151–81. https://doi.org/10.3917/th.822.0151. French. [English translation] Workplace telepressure, the relationship between the use of email at work and leader-member exchanges: roles of recognition and workload. · DOI
  21. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull. 1955;52:281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Del Líbano M, Llorens S, Salanova M, Schaufeli W. Validity of a brief workaholism scale. Psicothema. 2010;22(1):143–50.
  23. Schaufeli WB, Taris TW, Bakker AB. It takes two to tango: workaholism is working excessively and working compulsively. In: Burke RJ, Cooper CL, editors. The long work hours culture: causes, consequences and choices. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2008. p. 203–26.
  24. Grawitch MJ, Werth PM, Palmer SN, Erb KR, Lavigne KN. Self-imposed pressure or organizational norms? Further examination of the construct of workplace telepressure. Stress Health. 2018;34(2):306–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2792. · DOI
  25. Hong J, Jex S. The conditions of successful telework: exploring the role of telepressure. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(17): 10634. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710634. · DOI
  26. Barber LK, Leslie S, Samaniego A. Workplace telepressure and work rumination: evidence of incremental validity beyond workaholism. Occup Health Sci. 2024:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-024-00187-x. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Mount MK, Barrick MR, Scullen SM, Rounds J. Higher-order dimensions of the big five personality traits and the big six vocational interest types. Person Psychol. 2005;58(2):447–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00468.x. · DOI · Paper page
  28. McCrae RR, John OP. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. J Person. 1992;60(2):175–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Brown KW, Ryan RM. The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. J Person Soc Psychol. 2003;84(4): 822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Ostafin BD. Taming the wild elephant: mindfulness and its role in overcoming automatic mental processes. In: Ostafin BD, Robinson MD, Meier BP, editors. Handbook of mindfulness and self-regulation. New York: Springer; 2015. p. 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2263-5_5. · DOI
  31. Mellner C, Osika W, Niemi M. Mindfulness practice improves managers’ job demands-resources, psychological detachment, work-nonwork boundary control, and work-life balance–a randomized controlled trial. Int J Workplace Health Manag. 2022;15(4):493–514. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-07-2021-0146. · DOI
  32. Ioannou A, Lycett M, Marshan A. The role of mindfulness in mitigating the negative consequences of technostress. Inf Sys Front. 2024;26(2):523–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10239-0. · DOI
  33. Thommes MS. You’ve got mail: the effect of workplace telepressure on recovery processes and the benefits of mindfulness [dissertation]. Maastricht: Maastricht University; 2015.
  34. Franzen M. ‘Inhale… Exhale… Send e-mail’_ A study examining the role of trait mindfulness on workplace telepressure and its impacts on well-being, psychological complaints and work-life balance among workers [dissertation]. Utrecht: Utrecht University; 2020.
  35. Liu B, Zhang Z, Lu Q. Influence of leader mindfulness on the emotional exhaustion of university teachers: resources crossover effect. Front Psychol. 2021;12: 597208. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.597208. · DOI
  36. Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands-resources model: state of the art. J Manag Psychol. 2007;22(3):309–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Cambier R, Vlerick P. When thoughts have no off switch: the cost of telepressure and message-based communication behaviour within boundary-crossing contexts. Occup Health Sci. 2022;6(4):545–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-022-00127-7. · DOI
  38. He X, Gao Q, Cao Y, Bian R, Wang XH. “Always online”: how and when task interdependence and dispositional workplace anxiety affect workplace telepressure after hours. PsyCh J. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.747. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Francis J, Kadylak T, Cotten SR, Rikard R. When it comes to depression, ICT use matters: a longitudinal analysis of the effect of ICT use and mattering on depression among older adults. Springer; 2016. p. 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40542-1_49. · DOI
  40. Thomée S, Eklöf M, Gustafsson E, Nilsson R, Hagberg M. Prevalence of perceived stress, symptoms of depression and sleep disturbances in relation to information and communication technology (ICT) use among young adults–an explorative prospective study. Comput Hum Behav. 2007;23(3):1300–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.12.007. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Sonnentag S, Cheng BH, Parker SL. Recovery from work: advancing the field toward the future. Annu Rev Org Psychol Org Behav. 2022;9(1):33–60. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091355. · DOI
  42. Sonnentag S. Recovery from fatigue: the role of psychological detachment. Am Psychol Assoc. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1037/12343-012. · DOI
  43. Santuzzi AM, Barber LK. Workplace telepressure and worker well-being: the intervening role of psychological detachment. Occup Health Sci. 2018;2(4):337–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-018-0022-8. · DOI
  44. Cambier R, Van Laethem M, Vlerick P. Private life telepressure and workplace cognitive failure among hospital nurses: the moderating role of mobile phone presence. J Adv Nurs. 2020;76(10):2618–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14496. · DOI
  45. Cambier R. The itch for replying quickly: further insight into employees’ telepressure [dissertation]. Ghent: Ghent University; 2022.
  46. Gignac GE, Szodorai ET. Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Pers Individ Dif. 2016;102:74–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069. · DOI · Paper page
  47. Funder DC, Ozer DJ. Evaluating effect size in psychological research: sense and nonsense. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 2019;2(2):156–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202. · DOI · Paper page
  48. Hu XJ, Pawirosetiko JS, Santuzzi AM, Barber LK. Does your job shape your experience or interpretation of workplace telepressure? Exploring measurement invariance across occupational characteristics. Comput Hum Behav Reps. 2024;14: 100426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100426. · DOI
  49. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 1988.
  50. Semaan R, Nater UM, Heinzer R, et al. Does workplace telepressure get under the skin? Protocol for an ambulatory assessment study on wellbeing and health-related physiological, experiential, and behavioral concomitants of workplace telepressure. BMC Psychol. 2023;11(1):145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01123-4. · DOI
  51. Fuhrer C. Diminuer le technostress pour que s’exprime la capacité d’absorption de l’utilisateur ? Rev Sci Gest. 2021;(3–4):57–71. Available from: https://www.cairn.info/revue-des-sciences-de-gestion-2021-3-page-57.htm. French. [English translation] Fuhrer C. Reducing technostress to enhance the user’s absorption capacity? · DOI
  52. Sandrin E, Gillet N. Validation d’une version française de la Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS). Psychol Trav Org. 2016;22(3):147–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pto.2016.02.007. French. [English translation] Sandrin E, Gillet N. Validation of a French version of the Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS). · DOI
  53. Goldberg LR. An alternative “description of personality”: the big-five factor structure. In: Personality and personality disorders. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 2002. p. 34–47.
  54. Plaisant O, Courtois R, Réveillère C, Mendelsohn G, John OP. Validation par analyse factorielle du Big Five Inventory français (BFI-Fr). French. [English translation] Plaisant O, Courtois R, Réveillère C, Mendelsohn G, John OP. Validation of the French Big Five Inventory (BFI-Fr) through factor analysis: convergent analysis with the NEO-PI-R. Analyse convergente avec le NEO-PI-R. Elsev. 2010. p. 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amp.2009.09.003. · DOI
  55. Lovibond PF, Lovibond SH. The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behav Res Ther. 1995;33(3):335–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U. · DOI · Paper page
  56. Team RC. R. A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020.
  57. Rosseel Y. lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Software. 2012;48:1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02. · DOI · Paper page
  58. Tucker LR, Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1973;38(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170. · DOI · Paper page
  59. Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2): 238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238. · DOI · Paper page
  60. Cook KF, Kallen MA, Amtmann D. Having a fit: impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT’s unidimensionality assumption. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:447–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9464-4. · DOI
  61. Bentler P. EQS structural equations program manual. Encino: Multivariate Software; 1995.
  62. Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull. 1980;88(3): 588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588. · DOI
  63. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Soc Methods Res. 1992;21(2):230–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005. · DOI · Paper page
  64. Hu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118. · DOI · Paper page
  65. Widaman KF, Reise SP. Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: applications in the substance use domain. Am Psychol Assoc. 1997. https://doi.org/10.1037/10222-009. · DOI · Paper page
  66. Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2007;14(3):464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834. · DOI · Paper page
  67. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555. · DOI · Paper page
  68. McDonald RP. Test theory: a unified treatment. Psychol Press; 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601087. · DOI
  69. Trizano-Hermosilla I, Alvarado JM. Best alternatives to Cronbach’s alpha reliability in realistic conditions: congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Front Psychol. 2016;7:769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769. · DOI
  70. DeVellis RF, Thorpe CT. Scale development: theory and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2021.
  71. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104. · DOI · Paper page
  72. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci. 2015;43:115–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8. · DOI · Paper page
  73. McMillan LH, O’Driscoll MP, Burke RJ. Workaholism: a review of theory, research, and future directions. Int Rev Ind Org Psychol. 2003;2003(18):167–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013346. · DOI
  74. Aziz S, Bellows G, Wuensch K. The relationship between workaholism and negative affect: mindfulness matters! Int J Ment Health Addict. 2021;19:1605–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00249-5. · DOI
  75. Howard GJ, Smith RW, Haynes NJ, Clark MA. Being mindful about workaholism: associations between dimensions of workaholism and mindfulness. Occup Health Sci. 2022;6(2):295–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-022-00113-z. · DOI
  76. Pflügner K, Maier C, Weitzel T. The direct and indirect influence of mindfulness on techno-stressors and job burnout: a quantitative study of white-collar workers. Comput Hum Behav. 2021;115: 106566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106566. · DOI
  77. Haun VC, Nübold A, Bauer AG. Being mindful at work and at home: buffering effects in the stressor–detachment model. J Occup Org Psychol. 2018;91(2):385–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12200. · DOI
  78. Hülsheger UR, Lang JW, Depenbrock F, Fehrmann C, Zijlstra FR, Alberts HJ. The power of presence: the role of mindfulness at work for daily levels and change trajectories of psychological detachment and sleep quality. J Appl Psychol. 2014;99(6):1113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037702. · DOI
  79. Jamieson SD, Tuckey MR. Mindfulness interventions in the workplace: a critique of the current state of the literature. J Occup Health Psychol. 2017;22(2):180. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000048. · DOI
  80. Galla B, Baelen RN, Fiore HM, Hutt S, Shenhav A. Social media desire and impulsiveness: Intensified by self-immersion, reduced by mindfulness. University of Pittsburgh; 2018. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ch43n. · DOI · Paper page
  81. Woodlief D, Taylor SG, Fuller M, Malone PS, Zarrett N. Smartphone use and mindfulness: empirical tests of a hypothesized connection. Mindful. 2024:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-024-02349-y. · DOI
  82. Hefner D, Vorderer P. Digital stress: permanent connectedness and multitasking. In: Reinecke L, Oliver MB, editors. The Routledge handbook of media use and well-being. New York: Routledge; 2016. p. 237–49.

Metadata

Authors
Semaan, R., Gamaiunova, L., Teixeira, P. P., Nater, U. M., Heinzer, R., Haba-Rubio, J., Vlerick, P., Cambier, R., & Gomez, P.
Venue
BMC Psychology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-04-03
Volume
13
Issue
1
ISSN
2050-7283
DOI
10.1186/s40359-025-02616-0
Cited by
10
References
14
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • Swiss National Science Foundation (10001C_197449)
  • University of Lausanne

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