de Jonge J, Reuvers M M, Houtman I L, Bongers P M, Kompier M A
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J Occup Health Psychol. 2000 Apr;5(2):256-68. doi: 10.1037//1076-8998.5.2.256.
This study investigates the demand-control-support (DCS) model by (a) using a more focused measure of job control, (b) testing for interactive and nonlinear relationships, and (c) further extending the model to the prediction of an objective outcome measure (i.e., company-administrated sickness absence). Hypotheses were tested in a heterogeneous sample of 1,739 employees from a 3-year prospective cohort study called SMASH (Study on Musculoskeletal Disorders, Absenteeism, Stress, and Health). Baseline results showed that a linear additive model was superior for job satisfaction, psychosomatic health complaints, and sickness absence, whereas a curvilinear model was superior for emotional exhaustion and depression. It is concluded that, first, there was no evidence of interactive effects. Second, it seems sensible to pay more attention to curvilinear relationships in future research. Finally, the DCS model was not supported using a more objective outcome measure.
本研究通过以下方式对需求-控制-支持（DCS）模型进行调查：（a）使用更具针对性的工作控制衡量指标；（b）检验交互作用和非线性关系；（c）进一步将该模型扩展至对客观结果指标（即公司管理的病假缺勤情况）的预测。在一项名为SMASH（肌肉骨骼疾病、缺勤、压力与健康研究）的为期3年的前瞻性队列研究中，对1739名员工的异质样本进行了假设检验。基线结果表明，线性加法模型在工作满意度、心身健康投诉和病假缺勤方面表现更优，而曲线模型在情绪耗竭和抑郁方面表现更优。研究得出以下结论：第一，没有证据表明存在交互作用。第二，在未来研究中更多关注曲线关系似乎是合理的。最后，使用更客观的结果指标时，DCS模型未得到支持。
