de Jonge Jan, van der Linden Sjaak, Schaufeli Wilmar, Peter Richard, Siegrist Johannes
Department of Technology Management, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Int J Behav Med. 2008 Jan-Mar;15(1):62-72. doi: 10.1007/BF03003075.
Key measures of Siegrist's (1996) Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) Model (i.e., efforts, rewards, and overcommitment) were psychometrically tested.
To study change in organizational interventions, knowledge about the type of change underlying the instruments used is needed. Next to assessing baseline factorial validity and reliability, the factorial stability over time - known as alpha-beta-gamma change - of the ERI scales was examined.
Psychometrics were tested among 383 and 267 healthcare workers from two Dutch panel surveys with different time lags.
Baseline results favored a five-factor model (i.e., efforts, esteem rewards, financial/career-related aspects, job security, and overcommitment) over and above a three-factor solution (i.e., efforts, composite rewards, and overcommitment). Considering changes as a whole, particularly the factor loadings of the three ERI scales were not equal over time. Findings suggest in general that moderate changes in the ERI factor structure did not affect the interpretation of mean changes over time.
Occupational health researchers utilizing the ERI scales can feel confident that self-reported changes are more likely to be due to factors other than structural change of the ERI scales over time, which has important implications for evaluating job stress and health interventions.
对西格里斯特（1996年）的努力-回报失衡（ERI）模型的关键指标（即努力、回报和过度投入）进行了心理测量学测试。
为了研究组织干预措施的变化，需要了解所用工具背后的变化类型。除了评估基线因素效度和信度外，还检验了ERI量表随时间的因素稳定性——即α-β-γ变化。
在来自荷兰两项不同时间间隔的面板调查的383名和267名医护人员中进行了心理测量学测试。
与三因素模型（即努力、综合回报和过度投入）相比，基线结果更支持五因素模型（即努力、尊重性回报、财务/职业相关方面、工作保障和过度投入）。从整体变化来看，特别是三个ERI量表的因素载荷随时间并不相等。研究结果总体表明，ERI因素结构的适度变化不会影响对随时间的平均变化的解释。
使用ERI量表的职业健康研究人员可以放心，自我报告的变化更可能是由于ERI量表随时间的结构变化以外的因素导致的，这对评估工作压力和健康干预措施具有重要意义。
