4.1 Article

Long-term changes in the perception of job characteristics: Results from the Belstress II - Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Volume 48, Issue 5, Pages 339-346

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1539/joh.48.339

Keywords

job characteristics; job stress; job insecurity; longitudinal

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Belgium-The aim was to explore long-term changes in the perception of job characteristics-based on the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ)-in view of the changing labor market in Western societies. A total number of 2,821 workers from nine companies were involved in the longitudinal Belstress-project. Data were gathered on two occasions with a mean time interval of 6.6 yr. At both times, participants completed the JCQ which measures the perception of job demands, job control and social support. In addition, the instrument contains questions regarding physical job demands, job insecurity and impact of world market competition (WMC). Changes over time in the perception of the different dimensions of the JCQ were evaluated within a sample of 2,490 respondents who remained in the same job. A statistically significant long-term stability of all JCQ scales was found. As far as intra-individual changes over time are concerned, the population showed a modest average increase in the perception of job demands, control and support of approximately 3%. Long-term changes in the other scales were larger, with an average increase of 10.3% in job insecurity and 15.5% in impact of WMC. Substantial variation in these two scales was found at the level of the company and in some socio-demographic factors. While perceived job characteristics remained relatively stable over an average period of 6.6 yr, a substantial increase was noted in job insecurity and the impact of WMC. These dimensions are becoming increasingly important within the context of economic globalization and labor market flexibility.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available