Author
Listed:
- Wilfred Agbenyikey
(US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD 21244, USA
Department of Health Sciences, Martin Luther Health Training School, Kintampo P.O. Box 176, Ghana)
- Jian Li
(Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Fielding School of Public Health and School of Nursing, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA)
- Sung-Il Cho
(Department of Public Health Science, Institute of Health and Environment, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea)
- Sarven S. McLinton
(PSC Global Observatory, University of South Australia, Adelaide 5000, Australia)
- Maureen Dollard
(PSC Global Observatory, University of South Australia, Adelaide 5000, Australia)
- Maren Formazin
(Division “Work and Health”, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), 10317 Berlin, Germany)
- Bongkyoo Choi
(Center for Work and Health Research, Irvine, CA 92620, USA
Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA 92617, USA)
- Irene Houtman
(TNO Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, 2333 BE Leiden, The Netherlands)
- Robert Karasek
(Institute for Psychology, Copenhagen University, 1353 Copenhagen, Denmark
Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA 01854, USA
Øresund Synergy, Frederiksberg Alle, 50 1 tv, Frederiksberg C, 1820 Copenhagen, Denmark)
Abstract
Background: This paper empirically tests the new multi-level Associationalist Demand Control (ADC) theory by applying the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) 2.0 that assesses both a wide range of task characteristics as well as work organizational and external-to-work psychosocial characteristics. Methods: The paper is based on four JCQ 2.0 pilot studies among 16,125 workers in Korea, China, Australia, and Germany. All pilots used the original JCQ task-level scales and then added newly developed proposed items and scales, evolving more comprehensive higher-level scales from pilot to pilot from 2005 to 2011. A brief review of the analytic process is presented, followed by an assessment of the internal consistency and concurrent validity of the final 25 multi-level JCQ 2.0 scales at the task, the organizational, and the external levels. Results: Adequate psychometric properties were established for the JCQ 2.0 pilot scales. The extended set of task-level scales was found to be robust across all samples; the new organizational scales mainly showed adequate internal consistency with α > 0.7 in Australia and Germany (tested only there) and were associated with relevant work- and health-related outcome measures as expected. Similarly, the external-to-work scales (tested only in Germany) had adequate Cronbach’s Alpha values and showed expected associations to relevant outcome scales. Conclusions: Although not all scales were available in all countries, overall, the results support the “functional similarity” of the major scale areas across the four pilot countries and support the underlying extensions of the Demand–Control theoretical constructs to the multi-level psychosocial work assessment for the promotion of workers’ health and wellbeing as suggested by the new ADC model.
Suggested Citation
Wilfred Agbenyikey & Jian Li & Sung-Il Cho & Sarven S. McLinton & Maureen Dollard & Maren Formazin & Bongkyoo Choi & Irene Houtman & Robert Karasek, 2025.
"An International Comparative Reliability and Concurrent Validity Assessment of the Multi-Level Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) 2.0,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 22(9), pages 1-29, September.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:22:y:2025:i:9:p:1435-:d:1750097
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:22:y:2025:i:9:p:1435-:d:1750097. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.