Thriving from work questionnaire: German translation and validation

被引:0
作者
Neidlinger, Stephanie M. [1 ,2 ]
Peters, Susan E. [2 ]
Gundersen, Daniel A. [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Felfe, Joerg [1 ]
机构
[1] Helmut Schmidt Univ, Dept Work Org & Business Psychol, D-22043 Hamburg, Germany
[2] Harvard TH Chan Sch Publ Hlth, Ctr Work Hlth & Well Being, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] Rutgers Inst Nicotine & Tobacco Studies, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA
[4] Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Med Sch, Div Gen Internal Med, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA
关键词
Questionnaires; Worker well-being; Item response theory; Study validation; Germany; BIFACTOR; MODELS;
D O I
10.1186/s12889-024-19037-0
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
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 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 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 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.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 1998, WELLBEING MEASURES P
  • [2] Bakker A. B., 2007, J Managerial Psychol, V22, P309, DOI [DOI 10.1108/02683940710733115, 10.1108/02683940710733115.62, https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115]
  • [3] Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures
    Beaton, DE
    Bombardier, C
    Guillemin, F
    Ferraz, MB
    [J]. SPINE, 2000, 25 (24) : 3186 - 3191
  • [4] Brown A., 2015, Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment, P307, DOI DOI 10.4324/9781315736013
  • [5] Chalmers RP, 2012, J STAT SOFTW, V48, P1
  • [6] Expanding the Paradigm of Occupational Safety and Health A New Framework for Worker Well-Being
    Chari, Ramya
    Chang, Chia-Chia
    Sauter, Steven L.
    Sayers, Elizabeth L. Petrun
    Cerully, Jennifer L.
    Schulte, Paul
    Schill, Anita L.
    Uscher-Pines, Lori
    [J]. JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE, 2018, 60 (07) : 589 - 593
  • [7] A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life
    Chen, Fang Fang
    West, Stephen G.
    Sousa, Karen H.
    [J]. MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH, 2006, 41 (02) : 189 - 225
  • [8] Modeling General and Specific Variance in Multifaceted Constructs: A Comparison of the Bifactor Model to Other Approaches
    Chen, Fang Fang
    Hayes, Adele
    Carver, Charles S.
    Laurenceau, Jean-Philippe
    Zhang, Zugui
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, 2012, 80 (01) : 219 - 251
  • [9] Embretson S. E., 2013, PSYCHOLOGY
  • [10] Estimation of IRT Graded Response Models: Limited Versus Full Information Methods
    Forero, Carlos G.
    Maydeu-Olivares, Alberto
    [J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 2009, 14 (03) : 275 - 299