Effort, reward and self-reported mental health: a simulation study on negative affectivity bias.

Details

Ressource 1Download: BIB_05B4BD754C46.P001.pdf (207.36 [Ko])
State: Public
Version: Final published version
Serval ID
serval:BIB_05B4BD754C46
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Effort, reward and self-reported mental health: a simulation study on negative affectivity bias.
Journal
Bmc Medical Research Methodology
Author(s)
Arial Marc, Wild Pascal
ISSN
1471-2288 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1471-2288
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2011
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
11
Number
121
Pages
1-6
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article Publication Status: epublish
Abstract
Background : In the present article, we propose an alternative method for dealing with negative affectivity (NA) biases in research, while investigating the association between a deleterious psychosocial environment at work and poor mental health. First, we investigated how strong NA must be to cause an observed correlation between the independent and dependent variables. Second, we subjectively assessed whether NA can have a large enough impact on a large enough number of subjects to invalidate the observed correlations between dependent and independent variables.Methods : We simulated 10,000 populations of 300 subjects each, using the marginal distribution of workers in an actual population that had answered the Siegrist's questionnaire on effort and reward imbalance (ERI) and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ).Results : The results of the present study suggested that simulated NA has a minimal effect on the mean scores for effort and reward. However, the correlations between the effort and reward imbalance (ERI) ratio and the GHQ score might be important, even in simulated populations with a limited NA.Conclusions : When investigating the relationship between the ERI ratio and the GHQ score, we suggest the following rules for the interpretation of the results: correlations with an explained variance of 5% and below should be considered with caution; correlations with an explained variance between 5% and 10% may result from NA, although this effect does not seem likely; and correlations with an explained variance of 10% and above are not likely to be the result of NA biases. [Authors]
Keywords
Mental Health , Work , Social Values , Motivation , Self Concept , Burnout, Professional , Transportation of Patients , Psychology, Clinical
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
25/08/2011 14:35
Last modification date
20/08/2019 12:27
Usage data