Reliability of the Demand-Control Questionnaire for sewing machine operators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Demand-Control Questionnaire (DCQ), a 20-item scale that measures psychological work demands, job control and workplace social support, has frequently been used to assess occupational stress. The purpose of this study was to determine the test-retest reliability and internal consistency of the DCQ with sewing machine operators. Forty-six sewing machine operators completed the DCQ on two occasions with an 11-week time interval. A repeated measures analysis of variance model and subsequent application of generalizability theory were used to calculate the test-retest reliability of the subjects' ratings on the DCQ. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of the scale. The test-retest reliability was 0.33 (95% confidence interval = 0.05-0.61), indicating fair reliability. Good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.70) was found. The DCQ appears to be a reliable measure for assessing occupational stress in sewing machine operators. Workplaces need to place greater emphasis on the role of occupational stress in the prevention and treatment of musculoskeletal injuries among sewing machine operators.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".