Need for recovery (NFR) and prolonged fatigue are two important concepts for monitoring short- and long-term outcomes of psychological job demands within employees. For effective monitoring it is, however, important to gain insight in the reproducibility of the instruments that are used.
OBJECTIVE:
The objective was to assess reproducibility of the NFR scale and Checklist Individual Strength (CIS), measuring NFR and prolonged fatigue respectively, in the working population.
METHODS:
Longitudinal data from the Maastricht Cohort Study (MCS) study was used, capturing 12,140 employees from 45 different companies at baseline. A ‘working’ and ‘returning to work’ sample was conceived for different intervals; 4-month, 1-year, and 2-year.
RESULTS:
Reliability, assessed with the interclass correlation, was high within employees with a stable work environment for the NFR scale (0.78) and CIS (0.75). The smallest detectable change, assessing the agreement, was 41.20 for the NFR scale and 31.10 for the CIS.
CONCLUSIONS:
Reliability was satisfactory for both the NFR scale and CIS. The agreement of both scales to detect a changes within employees was, however, less optimal. It is, therefore, suggested that, ideally, both instruments are placed within a broader range of instruments to effectively monitor the outcomes of psychological job demands.
Eurofound. Fifth European Working Conditions Survey. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; 2012.
2.
Statistics Netherlands. ICT, knowledge en economy [ICT, kennis en economie]. Den Haag: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek; 2015.
3.
OECD. Mental health and work: Netherlands. Mental Health and Work, OECD Publishing; 2014.
4.
Van VeldhovenM. Need for recovery after work. An overview of construct, measurement and research. In: HoudmontJ,LekaS, editors. Occupational Health Psychology. European perspectives on research, education and practice. Nottingham. Nottingham University Press; 2008. pp. 1–25.
5.
BültmannU, De Vries M, BeurskensAJHM, BleijenbergG, VercoulenJHMM, KantIJ. Measurement of prolonged fatigue in the working population: Determination of a cutoff point. J Occup Health Psychol2000;5(4):411–6.
6.
KalkmanJS, ZwartsMJ, SchillingsML, van EngelenBG, BleijenbergG. Different types of fatigue in patients with facioscapulohumeral dystrophy, myotonic dystrophy and HMSN-I. Experienced fatigue and physiological fatigue. Neurological Sciences: Official Journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2008;29(Suppl 2):S238–40.
7.
de CroonEM, SluiterJK, Frings-DresenMH. Need for recovery after work predicts sickness absence: A 2-year prospective cohort study in truck drivers. Journal of Psychosomatic Research2003;55(4):331–9.
8.
van AmelsvoortLGPM, KantI, BultmannU, SwaenG. Need for recovery after work and the subsequent risk of cardiovascular disease in a working population. Occupational and Environmental Medicinei2003;60(Suppl 1):83–7.
9.
De RaeveL, KantIJ, JansenNW, VasseRM, van den BrandtPA. Changes in mental health as a predictor of changes in working time arrangements and occupational mobility: Results from a prospective cohort study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research2009;66(2):137–45.
10.
van AmelsvoortLGPM, KantIJ, BeurskensAJHM, SchöerCAP, SwaenGMH. Fatigue as a predictor of work disability. Occupational and Environmental Medicine2002;59(10):712–3.
11.
Silva-CostaA, GriepRH, FischerFM, RotenbergL. Need for recovery from work and sleep-related complaints among nursing professionals. Work2012;41(Suppl 1):3726–31.
12.
TerweeCB, BotSDM, de BoerMR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology2007;60(1):34–42.
13.
DimitrovD, RumrillP, FitzgeraldS, HennesseyM. Reliability in rehabilitation measurement. Work2001;16(2):159–64.
14.
RussellE, KorenG, RiederM, Van UumS. Hair cortisol as a biological marker of chronic stress: Current status, future directions and unanswered questions. Psychoneuroendocrinology2012;37(5):589–601.
15.
SluiterJK, Frings-DresenMH, van der BeekAJ, MeijmanTF. The relation between work-induced neuroendocrine reactivity and recovery, subjective need for recovery, and health status. Journal of Psychosomatic Research2001;50(1):29–37.
16.
Van VeldhovenM, BroersenS. Measurement quality and validity of the “need for recovery” scale. Occup Environ Medi2003;60(Suppl 1):3–9.
17.
VandenbergRJ, LanceCE. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods2000;3(1):4–70.
18.
MillsapRE. Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York, NY: Routledge; 2011.
HopkinsWG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Medicine2000;30(1):1–15.
21.
LexellJE, DownhamDY. How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation2005;84(9):719–23.
22.
de CroonEM, SluiterJK, Frings-DresenMH. Psychometric properties of the Need for Recovery after work scale: Test-retest reliability and sensitivity to detect change. Occup Environ Med2006;63(3):202–6.
23.
SchuergerJM, ZarrellaKL, HotzAS. Factors that influence the temporal stability of personality by questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1989;56(5):777.
24.
ChoiBC, PakAW. A catalog of biases in questionnaires. Prev Chronic Dis2005;2(1):A13.
25.
WeirJP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research2005;19(1):231–40.
26.
De VetHCW, TerweeCB, MokkingLB, KnolDL. Measurement in Medicine. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
27.
BeckermanH, RoebroeckME, LankhorstGJ, BecherJG, BezemerPD, VerbeekAL. Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Quality of Life Research2001;10(7):571–8.
28.
de VetHC, BouterLM, BezemerPD, BeurskensAJ. Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures. Theoretical considerations illustrated by an empirical example. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care2001;17(4):479–87.
29.
ErginG, YildirimY. A validity and reliability study of the Turkish Checklist Individual Strength (CIS) questionnaire in musculoskeletal physical therapy patients. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice2012;28(8):624–32.
30.
RietbergMB, Van WegenEEH, KwakkelG. Measuring fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis: Reproducibility, responsiveness and concurrent validity of three Dutch self-report questionnaires. Disability and Rehabilitation2010;32(22):1870–6.
31.
KoopmanFS, BrehmMA, HeerkensYF, NolletF, BeelenA. Measuring fatigue in polio survivors: Content comparison and reliability of the Fatigue Severity Scale and the Checklist Individual Strength. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine2014;46(8):761–7.
32.
HoefsmitN, HoukesI, NijhuisF. Environmental and personal factors that support early return-to-work: A qualitative study using the ICF as a framework. Work2014;48(2):203–15.
33.
KantIJ, BultmannU, SchroerK, BeurskensA, van AmelsvoortLGPM, SwaenG. An epidemiological approach to study fatigue in the working population: The Maastricht Cohort Study. Occupational and Environmental Medicinei2003;60(Suppl 1):32–9.
34.
MohrenDCL, JansenNWH, van AmelsvoortLPGM, KantI. An epidemiological approach of fatigue and work. Experiences from the Maastricht Cohort Study. Programma Epidemiologie van Arbeid en Gezondheid Maastricht University, Maastricht; 2007.
35.
BeurskensAJ, BültmannU, KantI, VercoulenJHMM, BleijenbergG, SwaenGM. Fatigue among working people: Validity of a questionnaire measure. Occup Environ Med2000;57(5):353–7.
36.
VercoulenJHMM, SwaninkCM, FennisJF, GalamaJM, Van der MeerJW, BleijenbergG. Dimensional assessment of chronic fatigue syndrome. Journal of Psychosomatic Research1994;38(5):383–92.
37.
RhemtullaM, Brosseau-LiardPE, SavaleiV. When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods2012;17(3):354–73.
38.
LeiP-W, WuQ. Estimation in Structural Equation Modeling. In: HoyleR, editor. Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2012. pp. 164–80.
39.
KlineRB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Third ed. ed. New York, NY: Guilford; 2011.
40.
HuLT, BentlerPM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling1999;6(1):1–55.
MeadeAW, JohnsonEC, BraddyPW. Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. The Journal of Applied Psychology2008;93(3):568–92.
van de SchootR, LugtigP, HoxJJ. A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology2012;9(4):486–92.
45.
MarshHW, LudtkeO, MuthenBO, et al. A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment2010;22(3):471–91.
46.
NunnallyJC, BernsteinIHPsychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
47.
OECD. Sick on the Job? Myths and Realities about Mental Health and Work. Mental Health and Work, OECD Publishing; 2012.
48.
ColeDA, CieslaJA, SteigerJH. The insidious effects of failing to include design-driven correlated residuals in latent-variable covariance structure analysis. Psychological Methods2007;12(4):381–98.
49.
MoriguchiCS, TrevizaniT, de Fátima Carreira MoreiraR, JanuárioLB, de OliveiraAB, CouryHJ. Need for recovery assessment among nursing professionals and call center operators. Work2012;41(Suppl 1):4838–42.
50.
GrootenWJA, MiraM, ForsmanM, et al. Health risk appraisals in Swedish occupational health services. Work2016;55(4):849–59.
