IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0340209.html

Validation of visual analogue scales to assess occupational stress compared to the Karasek questionnaire: A cross sectional study

Author

Listed:
  • Maëlys Clinchamps
  • Bruno Pereira
  • Martial Mermillod
  • Morteza Charkhabi
  • Marek Zak
  • Jiao Jiao
  • Alistair Cole
  • Jean-Baptiste Bouillon-Minois
  • Frédéric Dutheil

Abstract

Background: The Job Demand-Control-Support (JDCS) model is one of the most important tools for assessing work-related stress. However, its complexity highlights the need for simpler instruments, such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), for rapid assessment in occupational medicine. Objectives: To validate three VAS corresponding to the main JDCS dimensions: job demand, job control, and social support. Method: We conducted an observational cross-sectional validation study using a self-administered questionnaire completed twice, a week apart, at the participants’ convenience, to perform test-retest. Results: We analysed 155 participants (60 for test and retest), mostly women around 40 years. Acceptability was excellent, with high response rates. Internal consistency analysis revealed moderate correlations between VAS and JDCS model main dimensions. Reliability assessed by Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient was acceptable for the VAS and higher for the JDCS. Mean VAS scores indicated significant differences between low and high demand, control, and social support, with cut-off values of 58, 71.5 and 63.5 respectively. For external validity, we mainly found high agreement between VAS and JDCS. Conclusions: VAS are valid, quick, easy to use, and reliable tools for the assessment of job demand, job control and social support in daily clinical practice for primary prevention and diagnosis. Based on our findings, easier-to-remember cut-offs could be proposed at 60, 70, and 60 for VAS job demand, VAS job control, and VAS social support, respectively. However, when results are over the determined cut-off, we encourage the use of JDCS questionnaire. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05871411.

Suggested Citation

  • Maëlys Clinchamps & Bruno Pereira & Martial Mermillod & Morteza Charkhabi & Marek Zak & Jiao Jiao & Alistair Cole & Jean-Baptiste Bouillon-Minois & Frédéric Dutheil, 2026. "Validation of visual analogue scales to assess occupational stress compared to the Karasek questionnaire: A cross sectional study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(2), pages 1-19, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0340209
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0340209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0340209
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0340209&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0340209?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0340209. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.