New Instrument Developed to Assess Workplace Depression

Researchers and occupational health professionals may be able to more accurately screen for work-related depression using a newly developed tool known as the Occupational Depression Inventory (ODI).

Co-developed by Irvin Schonfeld, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at the City College of New York, and Renzo Bianchi, Ph.D., a researcher at the University of Neuchâtel in Switzerland, the ODI is a brief, nine-item questionnaire that assesses the severity of work-related depression symptoms.

“Burnout is a bit of a hazy concept, and there are no official criteria for burnout in DSM or ICD,” said Schonfeld, whose research focuses on the interplay between occupational stress and depression. “Many years back, I began thinking that all these scales assessing burnout were really measuring depressive symptoms that were attributable to the work environment.” Schonfeld reached out to long-time collaborator Bianchi, who shared a similar view, and the pair decided to come up with a new scale for work-related mood symptoms modeled after the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9).

While burnout measures, such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory, focus largely on symptoms of exhaustion and depersonalization, the ODI assesses the nine DSM-5 criteria for major depression, including cognitive impairment, psychomotor alterations, and suicidal ideation. Consistent with DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for major depression, ODI respondents are asked to report on symptoms experienced over the past two weeks, but symptoms are specifically framed with such phrases as “because of my job” or “at work.”

Items are rated on a four-point scale, from 0 for “never or almost never” to 3 for “nearly every day.” The ODI also contains a supplemental question asking patients if they are considering leaving their job.

The researchers evaluated over 2,200 employed individuals across three countries—France, New Zealand, and the United States—using the ODI, offered in two languages. They also evaluated cause-neutral depressive symptoms in the participants using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Additionally, the participants were asked questions about their work engagement and quality of work life.

The sample was predominantly composed of schoolteachers. “This may limit the generalizability, but teachers are a good reference since their work experiences fall on a broad spectrum from literally hostile to exceptionally life fulfilling,” Schonfeld said.

Overall, the ODI showed strong reliability based on how well scores correlated with the other general measures. People who scored high on the ODI were also likely to report depressive or anxiety symptoms in general, low physical health, low work satisfaction, and a desire to quit. In contrast, many participants who reported general depression symptoms did not meet the criteria for work-related depression, suggesting that the ODI is a selective assessment. Almost 8% of the respondents met the criteria for potential diagnosis of job-ascribed depression, according to the authors.

Schonfeld noted that the ODI could be useful as a measurement in research studies evaluating workplace mental health interventions.

“But its primary goal is to help psychiatrists and other occupational health specialists find out if employees are suffering because of the workplace,” he said. He noted that he and Bianchi are conducting additional analysis to see how well scores on the ODI correlate with scores on the Maslach Burnout Inventory.

Schonfeld said the current version of the ODI is freely available in both English and French; the instrument is one of the supplementary items in his article describing this tool, which was published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research. ■

“The Occupational Depression Inventory: A New Tool for Clinicians and Epidemiologists” is posted here.