Original article

Scand J Work Environ Health Online-first -article    pdf


The Danish Psychosocial Work Environment Questionnaire (DPQ): Development, content, reliability and validity

by Clausen T, Madsen IEH, Christensen KB, Bjorner JB, Poulsen OM, Maltesen T, Borg V, Rugulies R

Objectives The aim of this study was to describe the development and the content of the Danish Psychosocial Work Environment Questionnaire (DPQ) and to test its reliability and validity.

Methods We describe the identification of dimensions, the development of items, and the qualitative and quantitative tests of the reliability and validity of the DPQ. Reliability and validity of a 150 item version of the DPQ was evaluated in a stratified sample of 8958 employees in 14 job groups of which 4340 responded. Reliability was investigated using internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The factorial validity was investigated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). For each multi-item scale, we undertook CFA within each job group and multi-group CFA to investigate factorial invariance across job groups. Finally, using multi-group multi-factor CFA, we investigated whether scales were empirically distinct.

Results Internal consistency reliabilities and test-retest reliabilities were satisfactory. Factorial validity of the multi-item scales was satisfactory within each of the 14 job groups. Factorial invariance was demonstrated for 10 of the 28 multi-item scales. The hypothesis that the scales of the DPQ were empirically distinct was supported. The final DPQ version consisted of 119 items covering 38 different psychosocial work environment dimensions.

Conclusions Overall, the DPQ is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing psychosocial working conditions in a variety of job groups. The results indicate, however, that questions about psychosocial working conditions may be understood differently across job groups, which may have implications for the comparability of questionnaire-based measures of psychosocial working conditions across job groups.

This article refers to the following texts of the Journal: 2005;31(6):438-449  2017;43(4):294-306
Download additional material