What is CoPsoQ-istas21?
The COPSOQ, short for Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire , was developed in 2000 by T.S. Kristensen and V. Borg and has achieved remarkable international recognition. It is available in more than twenty-five languages and has been used in thousands of risk assessments in companies. Its development and national versions are coordinated through the international COPSOQ network.
CoPsoQ-istas21 is its Spanish version. The first version was published in 2003, version 1.5 in 2010, and version 2 in 2014. It is distributed through the method’s official website along with the manuals, the questionnaire, and a computer application that processes the responses.
The Generalitat of Catalonia recommends its use for the assessment and prevention of psychosocial risks and has translated the questionnaire and the set of instruments into Catalan, under the name PSQCAT21 COPSOQ.
Relationship between COPSOQ and CoPsoQ-istas21
- COPSOQ is the international instrument of Danish origin, governed by its international network, which defines the common framework and adaptation criteria.
- CoPsoQ-istas21 is the Spanish adaptation of that instrument, with its own questionnaire, its computer application and its reference values.
- PSQCAT21 COPSOQ is the Catalan translation of the instrument set.
- The correct terminology matters: talking about COPSOQ in general does not mean that the Spanish version with its reference values has been applied.
Versions and when to use each one
The method offers two general-purpose versions. The medium version is designed to assess companies with twenty-five or more employees and includes manuals, software, and a step-by-step intervention process. The short version is intended for individual self-assessment and the evaluation of companies with fewer than twenty-five employees.
The choice is not indifferent: applying the short version in a large organization prevents analysis by units and reduces the preventive value of the result, while the medium version requires an organization of fieldwork that very small companies can hardly sustain.
Conceptual basis
The method is based on general stress theory and integrates the most relevant conceptual models in the field: Karasek, Theorell, and Johnson’s demand, control, and social support model; Siegrist’s effort–reward imbalance model; Warr’s vitamin model; and Cherns and De Sitter’s sociotechnical approach. It also incorporates insights into emotional labor, insecurity, and conflicts arising from balancing work and family life.
The focus is on organizational working conditions that may be harmful to health, and not on individual or personality characteristics, in accordance with the Occupational Risk Prevention Law.
Terms of use
- Free access. It is a public instrument, with the only limitation being acceptance of the usage license clauses.
- Preventive purpose. Its use should be directed towards prevention, not other purposes.
- Participation. It requires the involvement of all agents involved in risk prevention.
- Confidentiality. The confidentiality of the responses must be guaranteed.
- No modification. The instrument cannot be altered: changing questions or scales invalidates the comparison with the reference values.
How to apply
The process is organized around a stable working group, made up of employees and their representatives, along with management, and supported by technical prevention staff. This group oversees all phases: agreement on the use of the method, preparation and execution of fieldwork, interpretation of the results and agreement on preventive measures, and implementation and evaluation of those measures.
This participatory approach is not a methodological addition: it responds to the consultation and participation obligations of articles 14, 18, 33, 34 and 36 of Law 31/1995, and seeks to ensure that the agreed measures are viable and are actually applied.
The questionnaire is completed anonymously and voluntarily. The software application calculates the results per unit of analysis and generates a preliminary report that the working group uses as a starting point.
How to interpret the results
The method allows for estimating the magnitude of risks using scores and the percentage of exposed individuals, that is, the prevalence of exposure, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 3.1 and 8 of the Prevention Services Regulations. It uses a standardized questionnaire, the epidemiological method, and reference values obtained from a representative survey of the employed population in Spain.
The questionnaire is validated, meaning it has been verified to measure what it claims to measure, and it is reliable, meaning its measurements are repeatable. Comparison with reference values allows each unit of analysis to be placed relative to the overall salaried population, thus guiding the prioritization of measures.
The interpretation belongs to the working group, not just the technical person: the figures point to where to look, and knowledge of the actual work explains why the exposure is what it is.
Limitations and common errors
- Modifying the questionnaire, removing questions, or changing the scales invalidates the comparison with the reference values and violates the license agreement.
- Apply the short version in large organizations for operational convenience.
- Reducing the method to passing a questionnaire, dispensing with the working group and the agreement on measures.
- Defining units of analysis so small that they compromise the anonymity of the responses.
- Interpreting the results as a measure of people’s health or personality, rather than as a description of work organization.
- Closing the process with the report, without planning, implementing or verifying the preventive measures.
Practical example
A service company with ninety people agrees in its health and safety committee to evaluate psychosocial risks with the medium version of the method.
- Agreement. The working group is formed with representation from the staff, management and the prevention service, and the agreement for the use of the method is signed.
- Fieldwork. The units of analysis are defined by department and the awareness campaign is disseminated. A majority of the staff respond.
- Interpretation. The preliminary report shows unfavorable prevalence in quantitative demands and influence in two departments. The group compares the data with the actual organization of work.
- Measures. Workloads are redistributed during peak periods, and the decision-making scope regarding task order is expanded. Implementation is planned with assigned responsibilities and deadlines, and a new measurement is planned.
Differences with other methods and instruments
- Compared to FPSICO. Both are general methods of psychosocial assessment widely used in Spain, with different conceptual frameworks, dimensions, and procedures. Neither is mandatory.
- Compared to the LIPT-60. This is an inventory of psychological harassment behaviors, with a much more limited scope.
- Unlike workplace climate surveys, these measure perceptions and satisfaction, not exposure to risk factors for preventative purposes.
- Regarding the assessment of psychosocial risks , this is the legally required process; CoPsoQ-istas21 is one of the methodologies that can be used to carry it out.
Regulatory and technical framework
- Law 31/1995, articles 14, 16, 18, 33, 34 and 36. Duty of protection, obligation to evaluate and rights of information, consultation and participation.
- Royal Decree 39/1997, articles 3 and 8. Content of the assessment and need to estimate the magnitude of the risk.
- INSST criteria on psychosocial risks . No method is mandatory; the choice must be justified by its suitability to the organization.
- COPSOQ International Network . Coordinates the original instrument and its national versions.
CoPsoQ-istas21 is not a legal standard: it is a technical methodology whose use is protected by article 5 of Royal Decree 39/1997 and by its own license for use.
