Thriving from work questionnaire: German translation and validation.
Germany
Item response theory
Questionnaires
Study validation
Worker well-being
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Jun 2024
19 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
21
02
2024
accepted:
03
06
2024
medline:
20
6
2024
pubmed:
20
6
2024
entrez:
19
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Thriving from Work questionnaire is a comprehensive indicator of positive well-being for employees, applicable in both research and practical contexts. Current discussions underline the crucial impact that employment should have in enriching workers' lives positively and meaningfully, along with the necessity for accurate and dependable tools to assess employee well-being. This study investigated the reliability, validity, and dimensionality of the translated German adaptation of the Thriving from Work questionnaire developed by Peters and colleagues [1, 2]. The questionnaire assesses work-related well-being with 30 items clustered in six domains: emotional and psychological well-being, social well-being, work-life integration, physical and mental well-being, basic needs for thriving, and experiences of work. This study aimed to convert the Thriving at Work Questionnaire from English into German. We assessed the psychometric characteristics of the German version of the questionnaire by using item response theory with a sample of 567 German employees and examined its criterion validity. We found that the long and short German Thriving from Work questionnaire versions are reliable with good construct validity. Criterion validity was demonstrated by relationships with important work and life outcomes, such as life satisfaction, trust in the organizations' management, general well-being, work-related fatigue, and work stress. The current study demonstrated that the German language version of the questionnaire is both a reliable and valid measure of employee well-being. We discuss recommendations for further adaptation and future research.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Thriving from Work questionnaire is a comprehensive indicator of positive well-being for employees, applicable in both research and practical contexts. Current discussions underline the crucial impact that employment should have in enriching workers' lives positively and meaningfully, along with the necessity for accurate and dependable tools to assess employee well-being. This study investigated the reliability, validity, and dimensionality of the translated German adaptation of the Thriving from Work questionnaire developed by Peters and colleagues [1, 2]. The questionnaire assesses work-related well-being with 30 items clustered in six domains: emotional and psychological well-being, social well-being, work-life integration, physical and mental well-being, basic needs for thriving, and experiences of work.
METHODS
METHODS
This study aimed to convert the Thriving at Work Questionnaire from English into German. We assessed the psychometric characteristics of the German version of the questionnaire by using item response theory with a sample of 567 German employees and examined its criterion validity.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We found that the long and short German Thriving from Work questionnaire versions are reliable with good construct validity. Criterion validity was demonstrated by relationships with important work and life outcomes, such as life satisfaction, trust in the organizations' management, general well-being, work-related fatigue, and work stress.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The current study demonstrated that the German language version of the questionnaire is both a reliable and valid measure of employee well-being. We discuss recommendations for further adaptation and future research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38898482
doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19037-0
pii: 10.1186/s12889-024-19037-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1634Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Peters SE, Sorensen G, Katz JN, Gundersen DA, Wagner GR. Thriving from work: conceptualization and measurement. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(13):7196.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18137196
pubmed: 34281131
pmcid: 8296939
Peters SE, Gundersen DA, Katz JN, Sorensen G, Wagner GR. Thriving from Work Questionnaire: dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the long and short form questionnaires. Am J Ind Med. 2023;66(4):281–96.
doi: 10.1002/ajim.23465
pubmed: 36748853
Chari R, Chang CC, Sauter SL, Petrun Sayers EL, Cerully JL, Schulte P, Schill AL, Uscher-Pines L. Expanding the Paradigm of Occupational Safety and Health: a New Framework for Worker Well-Being. J Occup Environ Med. 2018;60(7):589–93.
doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001330
pubmed: 29608542
pmcid: 6553458
Schulte PA, Delclos G, Felknor SA, Chosewood LC. Toward an expanded Focus for Occupational Safety and Health: a Commentary. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(24):4946.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph16244946
pubmed: 31817587
pmcid: 6949988
Peters SE, Gundersen DA, Neidlinger SM, Ritchie-Dunham J, Wagner GR. Thriving from Work Questionnaire: Spanish translation and validation. BMC Public Health 2024.
Nübling M, Stößel U, Hasselhorn HM, Michaelis M, Hofmann F. Measuring psychological stress and strain at work-evaluation of the COPSOQ Questionnaire in Germany. GMS Psych Soc Med 2006, 3.
Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. Utrecht work engagement scale – 9. Educ Psychol Meas 2003.
Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, Stewart-Brown S. The Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5(1):1–13.
doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-63
Lyubomirsky S, Lepper HS. A measure of subjective happiness: preliminary reliability and construct validation. Soc Indic Res. 1999;46:137–55.
doi: 10.1023/A:1006824100041
Willis GB, Artino AR Jr. What do our respondents think we’re asking? Using cognitive interviewing to improve medical education surveys. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5(3):353–6.
doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-13-00154.1
pubmed: 24404294
pmcid: 3771159
Chen FF, Hayes A, Carver CS, Laurenceau JP, Zhang Z. Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: a comparison of ctorfactor model to other approaches. J Pers. 2012;80(1):219–51.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00739.x
pubmed: 22092195
Porath C, Spreitzer G, Gibson C, Garnett FG. Thriving at work: toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. J Organ Behav. 2012;33(2):250–75.
doi: 10.1002/job.756
Schaufeli WB, Desart S, De Witte H. Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT)—development, validity, and reliability. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(24):9495.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17249495
pubmed: 33352940
pmcid: 7766078
Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands-resources model: state of the art. J Manag Psychol. 2007;22:309–328.
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.
doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
pubmed: 11124735
Pavot W, Diener E. The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. J Posit Psychol. 2008;3(2):137–52.
doi: 10.1080/17439760701756946
WHO. Wellbeing Measures in Primary Health Care/The Depcare Project. WHO Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen 1998.
NIOSH. NIOSH worker well-being questionnaire (WellBQ), vol. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2021 – 110. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 2021.
Raju NS, Laffitte LJ, Byrne BM. Measurement equivalence: a comparison of methods based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(3):517.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.517
pubmed: 12090609
Forero CG, Maydeu-Olivares A. Estimation of IRT graded response models: limited versus full information methods. Psychol Methods. 2009;14(3):275.
doi: 10.1037/a0015825
pubmed: 19719362
Brown A, Croudace TJ. Scoring and estimating score precision using multidimensional IRT. In Handbook of item response theory modeling: Application to typical performance assessment. Edited by Reise SP & Revicki DA. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2015:307–333.
Chen FF, West SG, Sousa KH. A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivar Behav Res. 2006;41(2):189–225.
doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_5
Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory. Psychology; 2013.
Lai K, Green SB. The problem with having two watches: Assessment of fit when RMSEA and CFI disagree. Multivar Behav Res. 2016;51(2–3):220–39.
doi: 10.1080/00273171.2015.1134306
McNeish D, Wolf MG. Direct Discrepancy Dynamic Fit Index Cutoffs for Arbitrary Covariance Structure Models. PsyArXiv 2023.
Chalmers RP. Mirt: a multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(1):1–29.
Morin AJ, Arens AK, Marsh HW. A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Struct Equ Model. 2016;23:116–39.
doi: 10.1080/10705511.2014.961800
Helliwell JF, Huang H. Well-being and trust in the workplace. J Happiness Stud. 2011;12:747–67.
doi: 10.1007/s10902-010-9225-7
Landy F, Quick JC, Kasl S. Work, stress, and well-being. Int J Stress Manag. 1994;1:33–73.
doi: 10.1007/BF01857282
Tamakloe SA, Amponsah-Tawiah K, Mensah J. Safety Climate and Psychological Well-being among workers in the Ghanaian Aviation Industry: does fatigue matter? Occ Health Sci. 2022;6(2):279–93.
doi: 10.1007/s41542-022-00110-2