Cross-cultural validity of the demand-control
					questionnaire: Swedish and Brazilian workers

Hökerberg, Yara Hahr Marques; Reichenheim, Michael Eduardo; Faerstein, Eduardo; Passos, Sonia Regina Lambert; Fritzell, Johan; Toivanen, Susanna; Westerlund, Hugo

doi:10.1590/S0034-8910.2014048005126

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Artigos Originais • Rev. Saúde Pública 48 (3) • June 2014 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-8910.2014048005126 copy

Cross-cultural validity of the demand-control questionnaire: Swedish and Brazilian workers

Validade transcultural da escala demanda-controle: trabalhadores suecos e brasileiros

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cross-cultural validity of the Demand-Control Questionnaire, comparing the original Swedish questionnaire with the Brazilian version.

METHODS

We compared data from 362 Swedish and 399 Brazilian health workers. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses were performed to test structural validity, using the robust weighted least squares mean and variance-adjusted (WLSMV) estimator. Construct validity, using hypotheses testing, was evaluated through the inspection of the mean score distribution of the scale dimensions according to sociodemographic and social support at work variables.

RESULTS

The confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses supported the instrument in three dimensions (for Swedish and Brazilians): psychological demands, skill discretion and decision authority. The best-fit model was achieved by including an error correlation between work fast and work intensely (psychological demands) and removing the item repetitive work (skill discretion). Hypotheses testing showed that workers with university degree had higher scores on skill discretion and decision authority and those with high levels of Social Support at Work had lower scores on psychological demands and higher scores on decision authority.

CONCLUSIONS

The results supported the equivalent dimensional structures across the two culturally different work contexts. Skill discretion and decision authority formed two distinct dimensions and the item repetitive work should be removed.

Questionnaires; Working Conditions; Stress, Psychological; Cross-Cultural Comparison; Validation Studies; Factor analysis, Statistical

Variable	Sweden N = 362		Brazil N = 399

	n	%	n	%
Age: Mean (SD)	49.2	9.8	35.7	11.2
Sex
Male	63	17.4	126	31.7
Female	299	82.6	272	68.3
Education level
< High school	119	32.9	44	11.2
High school	122	33.7	155	39.3
University	121	33.4	195	49.5
Occupation
Major ISCO-88 group 1^a	13	3.6	20	5.5
Major ISCO-88 group 2^b	73	20.2	146	40.4
Major ISCO-88 group 3^c	132	36.5	82	22.7
Major ISCO-88 group 4^d	28	7.7	61	17.0
Major ISCO-88 groups 5 to 9^e	116	32.0	52	14.4

Variable	Sweden						Brazil

	M1		M2		M3		M1		M2		M3
	λ	δ	λ	δ	λ	δ	λ	δ	λ	δ	λ	δ
Item	Psychological demands						Psychological demands
1. Work fast	0.671	0.550	0.683	0.534	0.624	0.611	0.807	0.590	0.804	0.594	0.735	0.678
2. Work intensely	0.778	0.395	0.765	0.414	0.715	0.489	0.916	0.400	0.913	0.407	0.851	0.526
3. Work effort	0.845	0.285	0.842	0.292	0.872	0.239	0.765	0.644	0.776	0.630	0.816	0.577
4. Enough time	0.636	0.595	0.630	0.603	0.634	0.598	0.648	0.762	0.640	0.769	0.661	0.750
5. Conflicting demands	0.516	0.733	0.539	0.710	0.542	0.706	0.530	0.848	0.534	0.846	0.551	0.835
	Decision latitude		Skill discretion				Decision latitude		Skill discretion
6. Learning new things	0.098	0.990	0.528	0.721	0.543	0.705	0.510	0.860	0.445	0.896	0.584	0.812
7. Skill level	0.133	0.982	0.726	0.472	0.793	0.372	0.506	0.863	0.597	0.803	0.704	0.710
8. Initiative	0.351	0.877	0.775	0.399	0.669	0.419	0.564	0.826	0.893	0.450	0.620	0.645
9. Repetitive work	0.280	0.922	0.180	0.968	–	–	0.047	0.999	-0.104	0.995	–	–
	Decision authority						Decision authority
10. How to do	0.924	0.147	0.918	0.158	0.886	0.215	0.692	0.722	0.785	0.620	0.775	0.632
11. What to do	0.806	0.350	0.801	0.358	0.833	0.306	0.745	0.667	0.812	0.584	0.821	0.570
Cross loadings
DA ⇒ item 8	–	–	–	–	0.310	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
PD ⇒ item 8	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	0.327	–
Item correlation
Item 1 ⇔ Item 2	–	–	–	–	0.282	–	–	–	–	–	0.368	–
Factor correlations
PD ⇔ DL	-0.261		–		–		0.104		–		–
PD ⇔ SD	–		0.298		0.400		–		0.440		0.229
PD ⇔ DA	–		-0.339		-0.340		–		-0.129		-0.129
SD ⇔ DA	–		0.333		0.091		–		0.401		0.472
GOF indices
RMSEA	0.148		0.091		0.067		0.134		0.082		0.058
CFI	0.798		0.926		0.971		0.862		0.951		0.982
TLI	0.741		0.901		0.956		0.823		0.934		0.972

Variable	Sweden				Brazil
Variable	λ_F1	λ_F2	λ_F3	δ	λ_F1	λ_F2	λ_F3	δ
Psychological demands
1. Work fast	0.565^a	0.237	-0.041	0.723	0.868^a	-0.171	0.020	0.539
2. Work intensely	0.853^a	0.009	0.279	0.572	0.910^a	-0.012	-0.004	0.430
3. Work effort	0.899^a	-0.008	0.175	0.523	0.705^a	0.144	-0.182	0.617
4. Enough time	0.656^a	-0.047	-0.002	0.780	0.632^a	0.007	-0.048	0.776
5. Conflicting demands	0.444^a	0.186	0.001	0.844	0.519^a	-0.011	-0.136	0.837
Skill discretion
6. Learning new things	-0.092	0.613^a	-0.027	0.774	-0.139	0.665^a	0.014	0.772
7. Skill level	-0.104	0.856^a	0.022	0.628	0.006	0.819^a	-0.226	0.642
8. Initiative	0.019	0.525^a	0.382^a	0.702	0.334^a	0.540^a	0.009	0.702
Decision authority
9. How to do	-0.162	0.007	0.730^a	0.576	0.055	0.006	0.944^a	0.375
10. What to do	-0.005	-0.246	0.965^a	0.373	-0.012	0.205	0.586^a	0.708
Factor correlations
PD ⇔ SD		0.333				0.288
PD ⇔ DA		-0.333				-0.111
SD ⇔ DA		0.195				0.411
GOF indices
RMSEA		0.090				0.048
CFI		0.968				0.992
TLI		0.920				0.981

Dimension		Sweden			Brazil

		Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Psychological demand	CR	0.823	0.824	0.781	0.858	0.858	0.797
	AVE	0.488	0.490	0.423	0.556	0.556	0.412
	√AVE	0.699	0.700	0.651	0.745	0.745	0.642
Decision latitude	CR	0.612	–	–	0.694	–	–
	AVE	0.289	–	–	0.312	–	–
	√AVE	0.537	–	–	0.558	–	–
Skill discretion	CR	–	0.656	0.712	–	0.559	0.671
	AVE	–	0.360	0.457	–	0.340	0.407
	√AVE	–	0.600	0.676	–	0.583	0.638
Decision authority	CR	–	0.851	0.986	–	0.778	0.779
	AVE	–	0.742	0.525	–	0.637	0.638
	√AVE	–	0.862	0.725	–	0.798	0.799

Variable	Sweden			Brazil

	Psychol. Demands	Skill Discretion	Decision Authority	Psychol. Demands	Skill Discretion	Decision Authority
Sex		^a	^a		^a	^a
Male	13.6 (2.9)	10.1 (1.8)	6.1 (1.4)	12.9 (3.3)	10.4 (1.9)	5.3 (1.6)
Female	13.6 (2.6)	10.6 (1.2)	5.6 (1.5)	13.3 (3.2)	10.8 (1.4)	5.7 (1.6)
Age				^a		^c
< 30	13.5 (2.3)	10.4 (1.6)	4.7 (0.9)	12.5 (3.1)	10.5 (1.6)	5.2 (1.5)
30 to 50	13.6 (2.5)	10.5 (1.4)	5.6 (1.4)	13.5 (3.3)	10.8 (1.4)	5.8 (1.5)
≥ 50	13.6 (2.7)	10.5 (1.3)	5.8 (1.5)	13.5 (3.3)	10.4 (1.8)	5.7 (1.7)
Education	^a	^c		^b	^c	^c
< High School	13.3 (2.8)	10.0 (1.5)	5.5 (1.5)	13.5 (3.1)	9.5 (1.8)	4.8 (1.8)
High School	13.4 (2.6)	10.6 (1.2)	5.7 (1.5)	12.5 (3.1)	10.4 (1.6)	5.2 (1.5)
University	14.1 (2.4)	10.9 (1.1)	5.8 (1.4)	13.6 (3.3)	11.2 (1.2)	6.0 (1.4)
SSW	^c		^c	^c		^c
Low (< 17)	15.0 (2.4)	10.3 (1.4)	4.9 (1.4)	14.8 (3.1)	10.8 (1.4)	5.0 (1.6)
Medium	13.5 (2.6)	10.5 (1.4)	5.8 (1.4)	13.8 (3.0)	10.5 (1.6)	5.4 (1.5)
High (≥ 21)	12.8 (2.5)	10.6 (1.2)	6.0 (1.4)	12.2 (3.2)	10.7 (1.6)	5.9 (1.5)

Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São Paulo Avenida Dr. Arnaldo, 715, 01246-904 São Paulo SP Brazil, Tel./Fax: +55 11 3061-7985 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revsp@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence: Yara Hahr Marques Hökerberg Laboratório de Epidemiologia Clínica Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Fundação Oswaldo Cruz Av. Brasil, 4036 sala 201-A Manguinhos 21040-361 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil E-mail: yarahahr@ipec.fiocruz.br