Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the short version of COPSOQ II-Brazil
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2021055003123Keywords:
Job Satisfaction, Occupational Health, Psychological Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Translating, Validation StudyAbstract
OBJECTIVES Translate and culturally adapt the short version of Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire II (COPSOQ II) into Brazilian Portuguese (COPSOQ II-Br) and evaluate its psychometric properties. METHODS Translation and cultural adaptation followed the standardized guidelines. Structural validity was assessed using exploratory factorial analysis. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC3,1) and internal consistency by Cronbach’s alpha. Floor and ceiling effect was considered acceptable if less than 15% of participants reported the lowest or highest scores. Measurement error was assessed by standard error of measurement (SEM), while construct validity was tested by correlating the COPSOQ II-Br, the Job Content Questionnaire and the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire. RESULTS The study evaluated a total of 211 civil servants and service providers in the test and 157 in the retest. After cross-cultural adaptation, the COPSOQ II-Br structure comprised seven domains and 11 dimensions. Most dimensions showed acceptable floor and ceiling effects, excepting “Work family conflicts” (floor effect of 26.1%), and “Meaning and commitment” and “Job satisfaction,” with ceiling floor of 27.5% and 22.3%, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha values reached the recommended levels (varied between 0.70 and 0.87). Test-retest reliability indicated that all dimensions had ICC between 0.71 and 0.81. SEM ranged from 0.6 to 2.2 and the construct validity showed good results with the tested instruments (significant positive and negative correlations). CONCLUSIONS All psychometric properties of the short version COPSOQ II-Br are suitable for use in Brazil. The instrument is thus validated and can be used by occupational health and human resources professionals to evaluate psychosocial working conditions.
References
Steel Z, Marnane C, Iranpour C, Chey T, Jackson J, Patel W, et al. The global prevalence of common mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis 1980-2013. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(2):476-93. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyu038 [ Links ]
Pinheiro MA, Ivandic I, Razzouk D. The economic impact of mental disorders and mental health problems in the workplace. In: Razzouk D, editor. Mental health economics: the costs and benefits of psychiatric care. Cham (CH): Spriger; 2017. p 415-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55266-8_28 [ Links ]
Centro Colaborador de Vigilância dos Agravos a Saúde do Trabalhador - CCVISAT. Programa Integrado em Saúde Ambiental e do Trabalhador -PISAT. Transtornos mentais relacionados ao trabalho no Brasil, 2006-2017. Bol Epidemiol. 2019 [cited 2019 April 25];9(13):1-5. Available from: https://renastonline.ensp.fiocruz.br/recursos/boletim-epidemiologico-transtornos-mentais-relacionados-trabalho-brasil-2006-2017. [ Links ]
Molen HF, Nieuwenhuijsen K, Frings-Dresen MHW, Groene G. Work-related psychosocial risk factors for stress-related mental disorders: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2020;10(7):e034849. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034849 [ Links ]
Silva C, Amaral V, Pereira AC, Bem-Haja P, Pereira A, Rodrigues V, et al. Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire - COPSOQ: Portugal e países africanos de língua oficial portuguesa, 2011. Aveiro (PT): Departamento de Educação, Universidade de Aveiro; 2011. [ Links ]
Tabanelli MC, Depolo M, Cooke RMT, Sarchielli G, Bonfiglioli R, Mattioli S, Violante FS. Available instruments for measurement of psychosocial factors in the work environment. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2008;82(1):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-008-0312-6 [ Links ]
Ganster DC, Perrewé PL. Theories of occupational stress. In: Quick JC, Tetrick LE, editors. Handbook of occupational health psychology. 2. ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2011. p. 37-53. [ Links ]
Moncada S, Utzet M, Molinero E, Llorens C, Moreno N, Galtés A, et al. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire II (COPSOQ II) in Spain: a tool for psychosocial risk assessment at the workplace. Am J Ind Med. 2014;57(1):97-107. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22238 [ Links ]
Nübling M, Stößel U, Hasselhorn HM, Michaelis M, Hofmann F. Measuring psychological stress and strain at work - evaluation of the COPSOQ questionnaire in Germany. Psychosoc Med. 2006;3:Doc05. [ Links ]
Alvarado R, Marchetti N, Villalón M, Hirmas M, Pastorino MS. Adaptación y análisis psicométrico de un cuestionario para evaluar riesgos psicosociales en el trabajo en Chile: versión media del COPSOQ. Rev Chil Salud Publica. 2009;13(1):7-16. [ Links ]
Dupret E, Bocéréan C, Teherani M, Feltrin M. Le COPSOQ: un nouveau questionnaire français d’évaluation des risques psychosociaux. Santé Publique. 2012;24(3):189-207. [ Links ]
Pournik O, Ghalichi L, TehraniYazdi A, Tabatabaee SM, Ghaffari M, Vingard E. Measuring psychosocial exposures: validation of the Persian of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ). Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2015;29:221. [ Links ]
Aminian M, Dianat I, Miri A, Asghari-Jafarabadi M. The Iranian version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) for assessment of psychological risk factors at work. Health Promot Perspect. 2017;7(1):7-13. https://doi.org/10.15171/hpp.2017.03 [ Links ]
Rosário S, Azevedo LF, Fonseca JA, Nienhaus A, Nübling M, Costa JT. The Portuguese long version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire II (COPSOQ II): a validation study. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2017;12:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-017-0170-9 [ Links ]
Kristensen TS, Hannerz H, Hogh A, Borg V. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire - a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2005;31(6):438-49. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.948 [ Links ]
Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TS, Borg V, Bjorner JB. The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(3 Suppl):8-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494809349858 [ Links ]
Burr H, Berthelsen H, Moncada S, Nübling M, Dupret E, Demiral Y, et al; International COPSOQ Network. The Third Version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Saf Health Work. 2019;10(4):482-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2019.10.002 [ Links ]
Silva MA, Wendt GW, Argimon IIL. Propriedades psicométricas das medidas do Questionário Psicossocial de Copenhague I (COPSOQ I), versão curta. REGE Rev Gestão. 2017;24:348-59. [ Links ]
Lima IAX, Parma GOC, Cotrim TMCP, Moro ARP. Psychometric properties of a medium version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ II) for southern Brazil. Work. 2019;62(2):175-84. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-192853 [ Links ]
Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Bouter LM, Vet HCW, Terwee CB. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz J Phys Ther. 2016;20(2):105-13. https://doi.org/10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0143 [ Links ]
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 [ Links ]
Alves MGM, Chor D, Faerstein E, Lopes CS, Werneck GL. Versão resumida da “job stress scale”: adaptação para o português. Rev Saude Publica. 2004;38(2):164-71. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102004000200003 [ Links ]
Barros ENC, Alexandre NMC. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Nordic musculoskeletal questionnaire. Int Nurs Rev. 2003;50(2):101-8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-7657.2003.00188.x [ Links ]
Terwee CB, Bot SD, Boer MR, Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012 [ Links ]
Bekiari EI, Lyrakos GN, Damigos D, Mavreas V, Chanopoulos K, Dimoliatis IDK. A validation study and psychometrical evaluation of the Maastricht Upper Extremity Questionnaire (MUEQ) for the Greek-speaking population. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2011;11(1):52-76. [ Links ]
Juul T, Søgaard K, Davis AM, Roos EM. Psychometric properties of the Neck OutcOme Score, Neck Disability Index, and Short Form-36 were evaluated in patients with neck pain. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;79:31-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.015 [ Links ]
Hauke A, Flintrop J, Brun E, Rugulies R. The impact of work-related psychosocial stressors on the onset of musculoskeletal disorders in specific body regions: a review and meta-analysis of 54 longitudinal studies. Work Stress. 2011;25(3):243-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2011.614069 [ Links ]
Almeida LMS, Dumith SC. Association between musculoskeletal symptoms and perceived stress in public servants of a Federal University in the South of Brazil. Br J Pain. 2018;1(1):9-14. https://doi.org/10.5935/2595-0118.20180004 [ Links ]
Fernandes RCP, Pataro SMS, Carvalho RB, Burdorf A. The concurrence of musculoskeletal pain and associated work-related factors: a cross sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:628. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3306-4 [ Links ]
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Josiane Sotrate Gonçalves, Cristiane Shinohara Moriguchi, Thaís Cristina Chaves, Tatiana de Oliveira Sato
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Funding data
-
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
Grant numbers Finance Code 001
