[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]
Also called effort/rewards, the model postulates that the efforts made at work are part of a reciprocal contract in which “rewards” are obtained in relation to the work performed (salary, esteem…).

Introduction

Two decades (1996) after the Karasek model appeared, a second model, based on two other variables, now also serves as a reference. It is the model of Johannes Siegrist, also called effort/rewards imbalance-ERI, the name of the two variables he intends to study. The model postulates that the efforts made at work are part of a reciprocal contract in which ” rewards ” are obtained in relation to the work performed (salary, esteem…). It is thus a very good complement to the application of the Karasek model.

The model variables

The efforts

The Effort variable is close to the Job demand variable in the Karasek model. We will measure the level of investment required by the work to be carried out: time constraints, interruptions, level of responsibility, physical and psychological burden…

The rewards

The rewards are classified in three forms: remuneration, esteem and finally control over his professional status (job insecurity, career opportunity…).

Over-investment

Finally, a final criterion allows the evaluation of over-investment. This makes it possible to prevent too much investment of people in their work, that in a way intended or not.

The questionnaire

The questionnaire exists in a long or short version. The original, so-called long version, consists of 22 questions, and the short version of 16. In both cases, the evaluation of the set of criteria is carried out via a scale of Likert, ” not at all agree; Disagree; Agree; Totally agree . ” Depending on the way the question is turned, the score corresponding to the judgement goes from 1 to 4 or from 4 to 1.

It should be noted that, depending on the version, the effort is assessed on 5 or 6 questions. The short version, 5 questions, is more suitable for the white collar, the long version is more suitable for the blue collar.

Once the evaluation is completed, the effort/reward ratio is calculated. We add the scores of the efforts and the scores of the rewards and then multiply this ratio by a correction factor K equal to the number of questions for the rewards divided by the number of questions for the efforts (thus 10/6 for the long version and 7/3 for the Short version).

It is considered that if this ratio is greater than 1, then the efforts are very important and there is a perceived imbalance between the efforts made and the rewards received.

Finally, once this ratio is calculated, we will use the overinvestment axis. This can be used to weight the previous results. Logically, at the most the score on this axis is high, the more the person can be subject to an overinvestment in a way or not. People with a score in the first tertile are considered to be at risk.

Source

J. Siegrist (1996) – Opposing health effects of high effort/low reward conditions.

I. Niedhammer, J. Siegrist (1998) – Psychosocial factors at work and cardiovascular diseases: the contribution of the effort/rewards imbalance model.

J. Siegrist, J. Li, D. Montano (2014) – Psychometric properties of the Effort-reared imbalance Questionnaire.

The variables of the model

The efforts

The Effort variable is close to the Job demand variable in the Karasek model. We will measure the level of investment required by the work to be carried out: time constraints, interruptions, level of responsibility, physical and psychological burden…

The rewards

The rewards are classified in three forms: remuneration, esteem and finally control over his professional status (job insecurity, career opportunity…).

Over-investment

Finally, a final criterion allows the evaluation of over-investment. This makes it possible to prevent too much investment of people in their work, that in a way intended or not.

The questionnaire

The questionnaire exists in a long or short version. The original, so-called long version, consists of 22 questions, and the short version of 16. In both cases, the evaluation of the set of criteria is carried out via a scale of Likert, ” not at all agree; Disagree; Agree; Totally agree . ” Depending on the way the question is turned, the score corresponding to the judgement goes from 1 to 4 or from 4 to 1.

It should be noted that, depending on the version, the effort is assessed on 5 or 6 questions. The short version, 5 questions, is more suitable for the white collar, the long version is more suitable for the blue collar.

Once the evaluation is completed, the Effort/reward ratio is calculated. We add the scores of the efforts and the scores of the rewards and then multiply this ratio by a correction factor K equal to the number of questions for the rewards divided by the number of questions for the efforts (thus 10/6 for the long version and 7/3 for the Short version).

It is considered that if this ratio is greater than 1, then the efforts are very important and there is a perceived imbalance between the efforts made and the rewards received.

Finally, once this ratio is calculated, we will use the overinvestment axis. This can be used to weight the previous results. Logically, at the most the score on this axis is high, the more the person can be subject to an overinvestment in a way or not. People with a score in the first tertile are considered to be at risk.

Source

J. Siegrist (1996) – Opposing health effects of high effort/low reward conditions.

I. Niedhammer, J. Siegrist (1998) – Psychosocial factors at work and cardiovascular diseases: the contribution of the effort/rewards imbalance model.

J. Siegrist, J. Li, D. Montano (2014) – Psychometric properties of the Effort-reared imbalance Questionnaire.

Share This