http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
The Third Version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire
Hermann Burr,Hanne Berthelsen,Salvador Moncada,Matthias Nübling,Emilie Dupret,Yucel Demiral,John Oudyk,Tage S. Kristensen,Clara Llorens,Albert Navarro,Hans-Joachim Lincke,Christine Bocéréan,Ceyda Saha 한국산업안전보건공단 산업안전보건연구원 2019 Safety and health at work Vol.10 No.4
Introduction: A new third version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ III) has been developed in response to trends in working life, theoretical concepts, and international experience. A key component of the COPSOQ III is a defined set of mandatory core items to be included in national short, middle, and long versions of the questionnaire. The aim of the present article is to present and test the reliability of the new international middle version of the COPSOQ III. Methods: The questionnaire was tested among 23,361 employees during 2016e2017 in Canada, Spain, France, Germany, Sweden, and Turkey. A total of 26 dimensions (measured through scales or single items) of the middle version and two from the long version were tested. Psychometric properties of the dimensions were assessed regarding reliability (Cronbach a), ceiling and floor effects (fractions with extreme answers), and distinctiveness (correlations with other dimensions). Results: Most international middle dimensions had satisfactory reliability in most countries, though some ceiling and floor effects were present. Dimensions with missing values were rare. Most dimensions had low to medium intercorrelations. Conclusions: The COPSOQ III offers reliable and distinct measures of a wide range of psychosocial dimensions of modern working life in different countries; although a few measures could be improved. Future testing should focus on validation of the COPSOQ items and dimensions using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Such investigations would enhance the basis for recommendations using the COPSOQ III.
W. Greg Miller,Gary L. Myers,Mary Lou Gantzer,Stephen E. Kahn,E. Ralf Schönbrunner,Linda M. Thienpont,David M. Bunk,Robert H. Christenson,John H. Eckfeldt,Stanley F. Lo,C. Micha Nübling,Catharine M. S 대한진단검사의학회 2012 Laboratory Medicine Online Vol.2 No.1
Results between different clinical laboratory measurement procedures (CLMP) should be equivalent, within clinically meaningful limits, to enable optimal use of clinical guidelines for disease diagnosis and patient management. When laboratory test results are neither standardized nor harmonized, a different numeric result may be obtained for the same clinical sample. Unfortunately, some guidelines are based on test results from a specific laboratory measurement procedure without consideration of the possibility or likelihood of differences between various procedures. When this happens, aggregation of data from different clinical research investigations and development of appropriate clinical practice guidelines will be flawed. A lack of recognition that results are neither standardized nor harmonized may lead to erroneous clinical, financial, regulatory, or technical decisions. Standardization of CLMPs has been accomplished for several measurands for which primary (pure substance) reference materials exist and/or reference measurement procedures (RMPs) have been developed. However, the harmonization of clinical laboratory procedures for measurands that do not have RMPs has been problematic owing to inadequate definition of the measurand, inadequate analytical specificity for the measurand,inadequate attention to the commutability of reference materials, and lack of a systematic approach for harmonization. To address these problems,an infrastructure must be developed to enable a systematic approach for identification and prioritization of measurands to be harmonized on the basis of clinical importance and technical feasibility, and for management of the technical implementation of a harmonization process for a specific measurand.