Logo of oenvmedOccupational and Environmental MedicineVisit this articleSubmit a manuscriptReceive email alertsContact usBMJ
Occup Environ Med. Jun 2003; 60(Suppl 1): i3–i9.
PMCID: PMC1765728

Measurement quality and validity of the "need for recovery scale"

Abstract

The "need for recovery scale" is suggested as an operationalisation for the measurement of (early symptoms of) fatigue at work. Definition of and background on the concept of need for recovery are briefly discussed. Details about scale construction are summarised. Correlations with other relevant measurement scales on fatigue at work are presented to validate the operationalisation claim, as are early results on predictive validity.

A study is presented that further investigates the measurement quality and validity of the scale. The data used in this study were collected by Occupational Health Services for 68 775 workers during the period 1996–2000. Comparing the measurement quality of subgroups (Cronbach's alpha) differing in terms of age class, sex, and education level, the general applicability of the scale was shown. The validity of the scale was studied by analysing its association with psychosocial risk factors. Multiple regression analyses of need for recovery were performed on individual and department level data, using 10 psychosocial job characteristics as independent variables. The two most important factors in the explanation of variance at the individual level were also dominant at the department level: pace and amount of work, and emotional workload. The percentage of explained variance was higher at the department level than at the individual level, and increased with department size.

Results suggest that the need for recovery scale is an adequate scale, both for applications at the individual and at the group (department/organisation) level.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (135K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • van Dijk FJ, de Kort WL, Verbeek JH. Quality assessment of occupational health services instruments. Occup Med (Lond) 1993;43 (Suppl 1):S28–S33. [PubMed]
  • Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH, van der Beek AJ, Meijman TF. The relation between work-induced neuroendocrine reactivity and recovery, subjective need for recovery, and health status. J Psychosom Res. 2001 Jan;50(1):29–37. [PubMed]
  • Sluiter JK, van der Beek AJ, Frings-Dresen MH. The influence of work characteristics on the need for recovery and experienced health: a study on coach drivers. Ergonomics. 1999 Apr;42(4):573–583. [PubMed]
  • Smets EM, Garssen B, Bonke B, De Haes JC. The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigue. J Psychosom Res. 1995 Apr;39(3):315–325. [PubMed]
  • Bültmann U, de Vries M, Beurskens AJ, Bleijenberg G, Vercoulen JH, Kant I. Measurement of prolonged fatigue in the working population: determination of a cutoff point for the checklist individual strength. J Occup Health Psychol. 2000 Oct;5(4):411–416. [PubMed]

Articles from Occupational and Environmental Medicine are provided here courtesy of BMJ Group

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...