ERI Questionnaires - Stress at work
You are invited to use the effort-reward imbalance (ERI) at work questionnaire exclusively for scientific reasons (research, teaching). If you intend to use the questionnaire for commercial purposes, your are obliged to get in touch with the copyright holder, Prof. Dr. Johannes Siegrist firstname.lastname@example.org, to be granted permission.
We may kindly ask all users to adhere to the following conventions:
1. Please refer to and quote the key publication on psychometric properties of the ERI scales as follows:
a) original version (23 items):
- Siegrist J, Starke D, Chandola T, Godin I, Marmot M, Niedhammer I & Peter R (2004). The measurement of Effort-Reward Imbalance at work: European comparisons. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 8, 1483-1499.
b) short version (16 items)
- Siegrist J, Wege N, Puhlhofer F, Wahrendorf M (2009). A short generic measure of work stress in the era of globalization: effort-reward imbalance. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 82, 8, 1005-1013 (There`s a mistake in table 2. The items ERI5 and ERI8 have been confused).
- Leineweber C, Wege N, Westerlund H, Theorell T, Wahrendorf M, Siegrist J (2010). How valid is a short measure of effort-reward imbalance at work? A replication study from Sweden. Occupational and environmental medicine, 67, 8, 526-531.
2. When preparing a scientific paper based on ERI questionnaire data - either fully or in part - we kindly ask you to acknowledge the contribution of your national contact person (see download section) in case you used the respective language version of the ERI questionnaire. Thank you!
User's guide and remarks concerning the updated versions of the ERI-Questionnaires
The new rating procedure consists of a verbal rating scale of four ordered categories, which can be used by the investigator to construct the corresponding scores. The response format and numerical values are the following: (1) strongly agree, (2) disagree, (3) agree, and (4) strongly agree. It should be noted that the Likert scale answer format has been changed from a two-step procedure with five categories to a one-step procedure with only four categories. Psychometric analyses revealed no substantial differences between these two procedures, but response rates were substantially higher in the one-step procedure. We therefore recommend to use this latter approach. We are aware that the absolute scale scores are no longer strictly comparable between the scoring formats, but we will present reference data (e.g. score distibutions, cut-off values) as soon as available.
If you need further information, please contact Prof. Johannes Siegrist, PhD.