Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
, 48 (3), 486-96

Cross-cultural Validity of the Demand-Control Questionnaire: Swedish and Brazilian Workers

Comparative Study

Cross-cultural Validity of the Demand-Control Questionnaire: Swedish and Brazilian Workers

Yara Hahr Marques Hökerberg et al. Rev Saude Publica.


OBJECTIVE To evaluate the cross-cultural validity of the Demand-Control Questionnaire, comparing the original Swedish questionnaire with the Brazilian version. METHODS We compared data from 362 Swedish and 399 Brazilian health workers. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses were performed to test structural validity, using the robust weighted least squares mean and variance-adjusted (WLSMV) estimator. Construct validity, using hypotheses testing, was evaluated through the inspection of the mean score distribution of the scale dimensions according to sociodemographic and social support at work variables. RESULTS The confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses supported the instrument in three dimensions (for Swedish and Brazilians): psychological demands, skill discretion and decision authority. The best-fit model was achieved by including an error correlation between work fast and work intensely (psychological demands) and removing the item repetitive work (skill discretion). Hypotheses testing showed that workers with university degree had higher scores on skill discretion and decision authority and those with high levels of Social Support at Work had lower scores on psychological demands and higher scores on decision authority. CONCLUSIONS The results supported the equivalent dimensional structures across the two culturally different work contexts. Skill discretion and decision authority formed two distinct dimensions and the item repetitive work should be removed.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 3 PubMed Central articles


    1. Alves MGM, Chor D, Faerstein E, Lopes CS, Werneck GL. Short version of the “job stress scale”: a Portuguese-language adaptation. Rev Saude Publica. 2004;38(2):164–171. doi: 10.1590/S0034-89102004000200003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Araújo TM, Karasek R. Validity and reliability of the Job Content Questionnaire in formal and informal jobs in Brazil. Scand J Work Environ Health Suppl. 2008;(6):52–59.
    1. Backé EM, Seidler A, Latza U, Rossnagel K, Schumann B. The role of psychosocial stress at work for the development of cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2012;85(1):67–79. doi: 10.1007/s00420-011-0643-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press; 2006. Methodology in the Social Sciences.
    1. Edimansyah BA, Rusli BN, Naing L, Mazalisah M. Reliability and construct validity of the Malay version of the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2006;37(2):412–416. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms