What do Demand-Control and Effort-Reward work stress questionnaires really measure? A discriminant content validity...

The Demand-Control (DC) and Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) models predict health in a work context. Self-report measures of the four key constructs (demand, control, effort, and reward) have been developed and it is important that these measures have good content validity uncontaminated by content from other constructs. We assessed relevance (whether items reflect the constructs) and representativeness (whether all aspects of the construct are assessed, and all items contribute to that assessment) across the instruments and items.

Two studies examined fourteen demand/control items from the Job Content Questionnaire and seventeen effort/reward items from the Effort-Reward Imbalance measure using discriminant content validation and a third study developed new methods to assess instrument representativeness. Both methods use judges' ratings and construct definitions to get transparent quantitative estimates of construct validity. Study 1 used dictionary definitions while studies 2 and 3 used published phrases to define constructs.

Overall, 3/5 demand items, 4/9 control items, 1/6 effort items, and 7/11 reward items were uniquely classified to the appropriate theoretical construct and were therefore 'pure' items with discriminant content validity (DCV). All pure items measured a defining phrase. However, both the DC and ERI assessment instruments failed to assess all defining aspects.

Finding good discriminant content validity for demand and reward measures means these measures are usable and our quantitative results can guide item selection. By contrast, effort and control measures had limitations (in relevance and representativeness) presenting a challenge to the implementation of the theories. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? While the reliability and construct validity of Demand-Control and Effort-Reward-Imbalance (DC and ERI) work stress measures are routinely reported, there has not been adequate investigation of their content validity. This paper investigates their content validity in terms of both relevance and representativeness and provides a model for the investigation of content validity of measures in health psychology more generally. What does this study add? A new application of an existing method, discriminant content validity, and a new method of assessing instrument representativeness. 'Pure' DC and ERI items are identified, as are constructs that are not fully represented by their assessment instruments. The findings are important for studies attempting to distinguish between the main DC and ERI work stress constructs. The quantitative results can be used to guide item selection for future studies.