Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the work-related sense of coherence scale, which measures the perceived comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness of an individual’s current work situation. Methods: Factorial validity, convergent and discriminant validity of the factors, as well as scale reliability were tested with confirmatory factor analyses among two samples of employees in higher education institutions (N = 6951) and nursing homes (N = 558). Factorial invariance across occupational groups was also investigated. Results: A modified three-factor structure was shown to be valid and reliable in both samples and invariant across occupational groups. However, problems were detected regarding the discriminant validity between the factors comprehensibility and manageability. Conclusions: The Norwegian version of the work-related sense of coherence scale seems to have good properties. Further development is needed to better distinguish between the comprehensibility and manageability dimensions.

Keywords

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Antonovsky

Health, stress, and coping. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1979.

Antonovsky

Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay well. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1987.

Eriksson

Lindström

Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale and the relation with health: A systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006; 60: 376–381.

Gräser

Hochschule und Gesundheit: Salutogenese am Arbeitzplatz Universität. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers, 2003.

Antonovsky

Sourani

Family sense of coherence and family adaptation. J Marriage Fam 1988; 50: 79–92.

Bauer

Jenny

Development, implementation and dissemination of occupational health management (OHM): Putting salutogenesis into practice. In: Houdmont

McIntyre

(eds) Occupational health psychology: European perspectives on research, education and practice. Maia, Portugal: ISMAI, 2007, pp.219–250.

Vogt

Jenny

Bauer

GF.

Comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness at work: Construct validity of a scale measuring work-related sense of coherence. SA J Ind Psychol 2013; 39: 1–8.

World Health Organization, WHO. The Jakarta Declaration on Leading Health Promotion into the 21st Century. Health Promot Int 1997; 12: 261–264.

Bauer

Vogt

Inauen

et al . Work-SoC – Entwicklung und Validierung einer Skala zur Erfassung des arbeitsbezogenen Kohärenzgefühls. Zeitschr Gesundheitspsychol 2015; 23: 20–30.

10.

van der Westhuizen

Ramasodi

. Work-related Sense of Coherence Scale: Reliability and validity of scores in a South African sample. J Psychol Afr 2016; 26: 216–220.

11.

Kline

RB.

Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 2011.

12.

Zweber

ZM.

Organizational health climate: Three facets and outcomes of relevance to organizations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, US, 2014.

13.

Gudmundsson

Guidelines for translating and adapting psychological instruments. Nord Psychol 2009; 61: 29–45.

14.

Undebakke

Innstrand

Anthun

et al . The ARK Intervention Programme. Who – What – How. Series of reports from the Centre for Health Promotion Research. Trondheim, Norway: HIST/NTNU, 2015.

15.

Statistics Norway. Labour force survey, Q4 2016, www.ssb.no/en/arbeid-og-lonn/statistikker/aku (2016, accessed 17 March 2017).

16.

Acock

AC.

Discovering structural equation modeling using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press, 2013.

17.

Mehmetoglu

Jakobsen

TG.

Applied statistics using Stata. London, UK: SAGE Publications, 2017.

18.

Raykov

Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Appl Psychol Meas 1997; 21: 173–184.

19.

Brown

TA.

Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 2015.

20.

Chen

FF.

Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling 2007; 14: 464–504.

21.

Klepp

Mastekaasa

Sørensen

et al . Structure analysis of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence from an epidemiological mental health survey with a brief nine-item sense of coherence scale. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2007; 16: 11–22.

22.

Sakano

Yajima

Factor structure of the SOC scale 13-item version in Japanese university students. Japanese Journal of Public Health 2005; 52: 34–45.

23.

Little

Cunningham

Shahar

et al . To parcel or not parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Struct Equ Modeling 2002; 9: 151–173.

Validation of the Norwegian version of the work-related sense of coherence scale

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References