Abstract
Introduction. The article presents the results of the Russian adaptation of the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ) originally developed by F. Morgeson and S. Humphrey in 2006. The authors aimed to keep the original instrument's structure as much as possible – the questionnaire includes 77 questions combined into 21 scales in 4 domains: task characteristics, knowledge characteristics, social characteristics, and work context. This adaptation is intended to fill the lack of Russian psychometric tools for the theoretical study of psychosocial work design, as well as for the practical assessment and design of competitive and safe workplaces.
Methods. The Russian translation of the questionnaire was conducted focusing on its psychological equivalence to the English original source. The psychometric properties of the technique were tested on a sample of 500 respondents (average age 39 years, 65% female) employed in more than 20 industries. Internal consistency was tested by Cronbach's alpha coefficients, factor structure was checked by Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Item Response Theory methods.
Results. The adapted questionnaire generally showed satisfactory internal consistency (α = 0.85). The instrument structure was checked by CFA (RMSEA = 0.058; SRMR = 0.07; CFI = 0.78) and IRT methods (noise levels for each scale not exceeding 40%). The obtained results allow the questionnaire to be used on a Russian sample, but remain the possibility of further improvement of some items and general structure.
Discussion The psychometric properties of the adapted version of WDQ are similar to the original English version. The study results show that the Russian version of WDQ is a well enough reliable and valid psychometric tool that can be used in future research.
References
Кабанова, Т. Н., Шпорт, С. В., Макурина, А. П. (2019). Современные зарубежные исследования факторов риска психологического стресса и психосоциального климата на рабочем месте. Социальная и клиническая психиатрия, 29(2), 93–98.
Кузнецова, Е., Зуев, В., Бабченко, Р., Чуйченко, В. (2023). Исследования рынка труда Российской Федерации. М: «Яков и партнёры».
Кузнецова, М. А., Васильева, Т. П., Тырановец, С. В. (2023). Международные требования к порядку перевода и культурной адаптации универсального опросника COPSOQ III по оценке психосоциальных условий труда и укреплению здоровья медицинских работников. Здоровье населения и среда обитания, 31(1), 29–33. https://doi.org/10.35627/2219-5238/2023-31-1-29-33
Липатов, С. А., Синчук, Х. И. (2015). Социально-психологические факторы организационной приверженности сотрудников (на примере коммерческих организаций). Организационная психология, 5(4), 6–28.
Львова, О. В. (2017). Факторная структура организационного контекста. Психология. Историко-критические обзоры и современные исследования, 6(6А), 100–107.
Марарица, Л. В., Кинунен, Т. А., Гуриева, С. Д., Яничева, Т. Г., Юмкина, Е. А. (2024). Адаптация методики переживания организационной политики (POPS) М. Качмар и Д. Карлсон: анализ внутренней структуры. Социальная психология и общество, 15(1), 190–208. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2024150111
Маслов, Е. В. (2014). Проектирование рабочих мест с учетом их привлекательности для работников. Вестник НГУЭУ, 4, 18–26.
Медведева, М. А. (2008). О терминологической неопределенности термина «социально-психологический климат коллектива». Инновации в образовании, 8, 61–77.
Нечепоренко, О. П. (2013). Стиль руководства как фактор социально-психологического климата коллектива и удовлетворенности работой. Вестник Омского университета. Серия «Психология», 1, 45–52.
Николаева, Л. А. (2017). Расширенная модель аффективной приверженности: выпускная квалификационная работа: по направлению подготовки 37.04.01 – Психология / научный руководитель. С. А. Маничев. СПбГУ, Санкт-Петербург.
Новикова, А. В., Перевезенцева, А. С., Широков, В. А. (2024). Разработка русскоязычной версии Копенгагенского психосоциального опросника COPSOQ III и её адаптация в различных профессиональных группах. Гигиена и санитария, 103(2), 130–135. https://doi.org/10.47470/0016-9900-2024-103-2-130-135
Осин, Е. Н. (2012). Измерение позитивных и негативных эмоций: разработка русскоязычного аналога методики PANAS. Психология: журнал Высшей школы экономики, 9(4), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2012-4-91-110
Шарифзянова, А. Т. (2021). Проактивность как предиктор вовлеченности персонала: выпускная квалификационная работа по направлению подготовки 37.04.01 Психология / научный руководитель: Н.Н. Лепехин. СПбГУ, Санкт-Петербург.
Andrich, D. (2010). Understanding the response structure and process in the polytomous Rasch model. In M. L. Nering & R. Ostini (Eds.), Handbook of polytomous item response theory models (pp. xx–xx). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203861264
Babapour, M., Hultberg, A., & Bozic, N. (2021). Post-pandemic office work: Perceived challenges and opportunities for a sustainable work environment. Sustainability, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010294
Burr, H., Berthelsen, H., Lluis, S., Nubling, M., Emilie, D., Demiral, Y., Oudyk, J., Kristensen, T., Llorens Serrano, C., Navarro, A., Lincke, H., Bocerean, C., Sahan, C., Smith, P., & Pohrt, A. (2019). The third version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Safety and Health at Work, 10(4), 482–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2019.10.002
Edwards, J., Webster, S., van Laar, D., & Easton, S. (2008). Psychometric analysis of the UK Health and Safety Executive’s Management Standards work-related stress Indicator Tool. Work & Stress, 22, 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802166599
Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45, 321–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500402
Kenny, D., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236
Kop, J.-L., Althaus, V., Formet, N., & Grosjean, V. (2016). Systematic comparative content analysis of 17 psychosocial work environment questionnaires using a new taxonomy. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 22, 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10773525.2016.1185214
Morgeson, F., & Humphrey, S. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321
Nebbs, A., Martin, A., Neil, A., Dawkins, S., & Roydhouse, J. (2023). An integrated approach to workplace mental health: A scoping review of instruments that can assist organizations with implementation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021192
Parker, S. (2014). Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and more. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 661–691. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115208
Parker, S., Morgeson, F., & Johns, G. (2017). One hundred years of work design research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3). https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000106
Rigdon, E. (1996). CFI versus RMSEA: A comparison of two fit indexes for structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 3(4), 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519609540052
Ríos, M., Ramírez-Vielma, R., Sanchez, J., Bargsted, M., Polo Vargas, J., & Ruiz, M. (2017). Spanish-language adaptation of Morgeson and Humphrey’s Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 20(28), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2017.24
Survey Research Center. (2011). Guidelines for best practice in cross-cultural surveys: Full guidelines. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Vyas, L. (2022). “New normal” at work in a post-COVID world: Work–life balance and labor markets. Policy and Society, 41(1), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puab011
Wright, B., & Masters, G. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Russian Psychological Journal