J Occup Health 2016; 58: 231-240

Original

Validation of the Japanese version of the job crafting scale
Hisashi Eguchi1,＊, Akihito Shimazu2,＊, Arnold B. Bakker3, Maria Tims4, Kimika Kamiyama5,
Yujiro Hara2, Katsuyuki Namba2, Akiomi Inoue6, Masakatsu Ono7 and Norito Kawakami2
1

Department of Public Health, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Japan, 2 Department of Mental Health, The
University of Tokyo, Graduate School of Medicine, Japan, 3Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Erasmus
University Rotterdam, Institute of Psychology, The Netherlands, 4Department of Management and Organization, Faculty of
Economics and Business Administration, VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 5 Juki Corporation, Japan, 6 Department of
Mental Health, Institute of Industrial Ecological Sciences, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japanand 7Claremont Graduate University, School of Social Science, Policy & Evaluation, USA

Abstract: Objectives: The aim of this study was to validate the Japanese version of the job crafting scale (JCSJ). JCS measures four independent job crafting dimensions, namely increasing structural job resources, decreasing hindering job demands, increasing social job resources, and increasing challenging job demands. Methods: The translated and back-translated JCS-J questionnaires were administered online to 972 employees of aJapanese manufacturing company. The data were thendivided into independent explorative and confirmative
samples. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses
were performed to evaluate the factorial validity of JCSJ. The relationship with potential consequences of job
crafting (e.g., job demands, job resources, and psychological well-being) was investigated to evaluate constructvalidity. Internal consistency was examined to evaluate
the reliability of the four JCSs. Results: An exploratory
factor analysis extracted a five-factor solution. Decreasing hindering job demands was further split into two
separate dimensions supporting a five- rather than fourfactor structure. A series of confirmatory factor analyses
revealed that the modified five-factor model that allows
covariance between items fits the data best. Constructvalidity was generally supported by the expected correlations of each job crafting dimension with each corresponding job resource (＋), job demand (＋), and psychological well-being (＋). Cronbach’s α coefficient was
sufficient for each of the four dimensions of job crafting
Received June 30, 2015; Accepted December 6, 2015
Published online in J-STAGE April 22, 2016
Correspondence to: H. Eguchi, MD, MBA, PhD, Department of Public
Health, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato Minamiku, Sagamihara, 252-0374, Japan (e-mail: eguchi-sgy@umin.ac.jp)* Equal contribution.

(α ranged between 0.76 and 0.90). Conclusions: This
study confirmed that JCS-J is an adequate measure of
job crafting that can be used in the Japanese context.
(J Occup Health 2016; 58: 231-240)
doi: 10.1539/joh.15-0173-OA
Key words: Job crafting, Job demands-resources theory, Scale development, Well-being

Introduction
In the past decades, research on work-related wellbeing has shifted its focus from negative aspects, such as
burnout or psychological distress, to positive aspects,
such as work engagement 1 ) . Although the job demandcontrol model 2 ) and effort-reward imbalance model 3 ) areexclusively focused not only on negative outcomes (e.g.,
psychological distress) but also on positive ones (e.g., job
satisfaction), empirical studies have mainly focused on
negative outcomes 4,5 ) . In contrast, the job demandresource (JD-R) model consistently focuses on both negative and positive outcomes of employee well-being6,7). The
JD-R model also acknowledges the proactive role employees can play in optimizing their own work environment. This proactive behavior is called job crafting 8 ) .
Through job crafting, individuals actively strive to mobilize job demands and job resources to fulfill their needs
and thrive at work9).
Presently, the job crafting scale (JCS) is mostly used inWestern countries. Versions are available in languages
such as English and Dutch10). Through job crafting behaviors, employees can change how work is conceptualized
and performed and how often and with whom they interact 9 ) . Job crafting behaviors may lead to many positive

232

outcomes 8 ) . To investigate and apply the concept of job
crafting in Japan, the validation of a Japanese version of
JCS is a necessary first step. In 2012 in Japan, more thanhalf of all workers reported job-related distress caused byworkplace human relations, qualitative workload, andquantitative workload 11 ) . As in other countries, the concept of job crafting is potentially beneficial for the wellbeing of Japanese workers.
The aim of the current article is to validate the Japaneseversion of the JCS (JCS-J), a self-report questionnaire tomeasure employee job crafting, and to examine its psychometric properties.
Job crafting
Job crafting has been defined as self-initiated change
behaviors that employees engage in with the aim to aligntheir jobs with their own preferences, motives, and passions 12). Tims et al.13) argued that by framing job craftingin terms of job demands and resources, it is possible tocapture many aspects that employees may alter. They distinguished four independent job crafting dimensions: increasing structural job resources, decreasing hindering job
demands, increasing social job resources, and increasing
challenging job demands. To measure these four dimensions, Tims et al. developed JCS. Two of the four job
crafting dimensions refer to the type of job resources thatare crafted: structural (e.g., autonomy and variety) and social job resources (e.g., social support and feedback) 14 ) .
The other two dimensions refer to job demands: challenging (e.g., workload and time pressure) and hindering job
demands (e.g., role ambiguity and role conflict)14).
Job crafting may lead to many positive outcomes forthe employee as well as for the organization9). Employees
may minimize the presence of hindering job demands andmaximize the availability of job resources and challenging job demands, resulting in improved well-being9,15). Indeed, research has shown that job crafting positively impacts well-being via changes in job demands and increases in job resources, which is consistent with the JDR theory14).
Association of job crafting with potential outcomes
Job demands and job resources
Two previous meta-analytic studies 16,17 ) examined theeffect of two groups of job demands on work-related outcomes. The first group was called challenging job demands (e.g., workload and time pressure), and the second
group was called hindering job demands (e.g., role ambiguity and role conflict). A job demand is seen as challenging when work-related demands, although potentiallystressful, have potential gains for individuals ( e. g. , increased knowledge and skills) 18) . However, a job demandis seen as a hindrance when the work-related demands
tend to interfere with an individual’s achievement 18 ) .
Therefore, we hypothesize that increasing challenging job

J Occup Health, Vol. 58, 2016

demands has a positive association with challenging job
demands (hypothesis 1a) and decreasing hindering job demands has a negative association with hindering job demands (hypothesis 1b).
In addition to job demands, the JD-R theory 7 ) distinguishes job resources as aspects of the work environmentthat buffer the impact of job demands and facilitate goal
achievement. Job resources are the most important predictors of work engagement19) and are composed of structuraland social resources13). Structural job resources are the job
design, such as the variety of resources and opportunities
for development. Social job resources are the social aspects of the job, such as social support and supervisory
feedback. Employees may proactively change their work
environment by modifying their job resources. For example, employees who engaged in job crafting by asking for
feedback reported higher levels of actual feedback overtime 14 ) . Through job crafting, employees may align theirjob with their individual preferences, skills, and abilities13). Therefore, we hypothesize that increasing structural
job resources has a positive association with structural job
resources (hypothesis 2a), and increasing social job resources has a positive association with social job resources (hypothesis 2b).
Psychological well-being
Theoretically, the association between job crafting andpsychological well-being can be explained using the conservation of resources (COR) theory 20 ) . The COR theory
asserts that an individual aspires to preserve, protect, andbuild resources. Accordingly, resource loss is the primary
operating mechanism driving stress reactions. As long as
an individual can limit resource loss, he/she will manifest
fewer negative outcomes because resources are integral tothe individual’s ability to offset stress, improve her/her
conditions, and deter future stressful experiences. In contrast, COR theory suggests that resource gains build onthemselves, and as people gain resources, they experience
more positive health and well-being. Therefore, increasing structural and social resources may lead to maintenance and restoration of job resources. Moreover, increasing challenging job demands and decreasing hindering
job demands may lead to maintaining and restoring existing resources. Resource gain may increase positive emotions as well.
Previous research has indicated that job crafting is
positively associated with work engagement and job satisfaction 8,21) . A recent meta-analysis 17 ) found that challenging job demands were positively related to work engagement. Challenging job demands offer mastery experiencesthat in turn may lead to job satisfaction 22,23 ) . Previous
meta-analyses demonstrated the negative effect of hindering job demands on work engagement and job satisfaction 16,22 ) . Prolonged exposure to hindering job demands
may instigate a health impairment process 24 ) . Job re-

233

Hisashi Eguchi, et al.: Japanese version of the job crafting scale

sources are the most important predictors of positive emotions 25,26) . Employees with more job resources experience
less stress than those with fewer job resources27). Throughjob crafting, employees can optimize their environment
by looking for the right job resources and sufficiently
challenging job demands. They can also reduce their hindering job demands. Thus, job crafters may have all themeans to perform well, avoid stress, and sustain work engagement. Therefore, we expect that the four job crafting
dimensions have a positive association with work engagement and job satisfaction (hypothesis 3a) and a negative
association with physical complaints and psychologicaldistress (hypothesis 3b).
The current study
This study aims to validate JCS-J in a sample of Japanese employees. More specifically, we examined its factorial and construct validity as well as its reliability (internal consistency).
MethodParticipants and procedure
This study was based on cross-sectional data obtained
from employees of a manufacturing company in Japan in
October 2013. All employees (n = 973 ) were invited toparticipate in an online survey; thus, participants supplied
data via the Internet. In total, 972 employees completed
the questionnaire (response rate of 99.9%) of which 796
were male (81.9%). Of these participants, the age distribution was 12.8% (n=125) in their 20s, 19.2% (n=185) intheir 30s, 34.5% (n=334) in their 40s, and 33.5% (n=328)
in age 50 or older.
Ethics
The study aims and protocol were approved by the ethics review board of the University of Tokyo in 2013 before starting the study. Participants had the option of not
responding to any part of the questionnaire at any timeand also the option to discontinue the survey at any point.
Consent was implied on the basis of voluntary participation according to the ethics code for public health research in Japan28).
Translation of the JCS
First, the English version of the JCS was translated into
Japanese by the authors of the current study. Then, backtranslation into English was performed by an English andJapanese bilingual specialist who had not read the originalitems and who held a degree in occupational health psychology. We compared the English and back-translated
versions of the JCS and created a preliminary Japaneseversion after some corrections for terms, meanings, andcontent of each item. The Japanese version of the JCS isprovided in Appendix 1.
MeasuresJob crafting. Job crafting was assessed with the translated version of the scale by Tims et al. 13 ) . The items on
the JCS are grouped into four subscales that reflect theunderlying dimensions of job crafting: increasing structural job resources (five items), decreasing hindering job
demands (six items), increasing social job resources (fiveitems ) , and increasing challenging job demands ( fiveitems). All items were scored on a five-point frequency
scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (often).
Job demands. In accordance with previous studies in
Europe and Japan 16-18,22,29 ) , we used workload and timepressure as challenging job demands and role ambiguity
as a hindering job demand. Workload and time pressure
as challenging job demands were assessed using the corresponding subscale of the new version of the Brief Job
Stress Questionnaire ( New BJSQ ) consisting of three
items (e.g., I have plenty of work to do ) on the basis ofa previous study 30) . The New BJSQ has an acceptable internal consistency reliability and construct validity among
Japanese workers30). Role ambiguity as a hindering job demand was also assessed using five items from the New
BJSQ (e.g., I know what my job responsibilities are.
This item is reverse scored.) Items were scored on a fourpoint Likert scale, ranging from 1 (disagree) to 4 (agree).
Job resources. In accordance with Tims et al., job resources were measured on two factors, structural and social job resources 13 ) . The structural job resources containjob control (three items), suitable jobs (one item), skill
utilization (one item), meaningfulness of work (one item),role clarity (one item), and career opportunity (one item).
Social job resources refer to supervisor support ( three
items), coworker support (three items), momentary/statusreward (one item), esteem reward (one item), job security(one item), leadership ( one item ) , interactional justice(one item ) , workplace where people complement eachother (one item), and workplace where mistakes are acceptable (one item). Each job resource was assessed using
the corresponding subscale of the New BJSQ 30 ) . Items
were scored on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from 1(disagree) to 4 (agree).
Well-being. Work engagement was assessed with theshort form of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale(UWES)31,32). The UWES includes three subscales that reflect the underlying dimensions of engagement : vigor,
dedication, and absorption ( three items for each ) . All
items were scored on a seven-point Likert scale ranging
from 0 (never) to 6 (always). The validation study of theJapanese version of the UWES 32 ) recommends that work
engagement should be treated as a unitary construct owing to high correlations among the three components.
Job satisfaction was assessed using one item from the
New BJSQ30). The item I am satisfied with my work was

234scored on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 4 (agree).
Physical complaints and psychological distress wereassessed using the corresponding subscales of the New
BJSQ30). Physical complaints were measured by means of
11 items. Psychological distress was measured by meansof 15 items, mainly reflecting fatigue, anxiety, and depression. All items were scored on a four-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (very rarely) to 4 (almost all thetime).
High scores indicate a high level for each dimension of
job crafting, job demands, job resources, work engagement, job satisfaction, physical complaints, and psychological distress.
Analyses
We split the data into two random groups for exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. In evaluating thefactorial validity of the JCS-J, we first conducted exploratory factor analysis, whereby all 21 items were enteredusing the unweighted least squares method. We extracted
factors with eigenvalues greater than one and then obtained factor structures with promax rotation. Next, we
conducted confirmatory factor analysis. We compared the
hypothesized four-factor model with a one-factor model,
whereby all items loaded on one general job crafting factor. Model fit was assessed using a combination of fit indices including the goodness of fit index (GFI) , parsimony goodness of fit index (PGFI), non-normed fit index(NNFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), parsimony normed fit index (PNFI), and the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA). The acceptability of model fit
was judged by the following criteria: GFI, PGFI, NNFI,
CFI, and PNFI of >0.90 and RMSEA of <0.0833).
In evaluating construct validity, we calculated the Pearson’s correlation coefficients of job crafting with job demands, job resources, and well-being. In evaluating internal consistency, Cronbach’s α values were calculated.
The level of significance used was 0.05 (two tailed). IBM
SPSS statistics for Windows, Version 22 and Amos 18
software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) were used forthe statistical analyses.
Results
Factorial validity
Table 1 shows the results of exploratory factor analysis
of JCS-J. Contrary to our expectations, five factors witheigenvalue of >1 were extracted. All items for increasing
structural job resources, challenging job demands, and social job resources showed the greatest factor loadings on
factors 1, 2, and 3; three of the six items for decreasing
hindering job demands showed the greatest factor loadings on factor 4; and the remaining three items loaded on
factor 5. Interfactor correlations between the factors

J Occup Health, Vol. 58, 2016

ranged from 0.02 (between factors 1 and 4) to 0.64 (between factors 1 and 2).
In the next step, we conducted confirmatory factor
analysis for the other sample with exploratory factor
analysis. As shown in Table 2, the hypothesized fourfactor model (Model 2) showed a significantly better fit to
the data than the one-factor model (Model 1) [Δχ 2 (6)=3922.20, p < 0.001 ] . The fit indices of the four-factor
model (Model 2) were GFI=0.85, PGFI=0.68, NNFI =0.85, CFI=0.88, PNFI=0.74, and RMSEA=0.08. Examination of the modification indices (MIs) suggested thatthe fit would improve if the error terms of items 6 and 7(MI=104.76) were allowed to correlate 34 ) . This suggeststhat these two items (i.e., mental and emotional demands)
are rather similar in terms of psychological content.
Please note that each pair of error terms belonged to thesame dimension; therefore, we reasoned that these correlations were warranted 34 ) . Respondents reacted similarly
to the items with highly similar content, presumably producing similar errors in the measurement. The modified
four-factor model (Model 3) significantly improved the fit
in comparison with Model 2 [Δχ 2 (1)=107.04, p<0.001],
with an additional increase in all fit indices. In Model 3,
all items were significantly loaded on their respective latent factors. Interfactor correlations between the latent
factors were 0.13 (between decreasing hindering job demands and increasing structural job resources and between decreasing hindering job demands and increasingsocial job resources), 0.21 (between decreasing hindering
job demands and increasing challenging job demands ) ,0.42 (between increasing structural job resources and increasing social job resources), 0.52 (between increasingsocial job resources and increasing challenging job demands), and 0.66 (between increasing structural job resources and increasing challenging job demands). These
interfactor correlations were all statistically significant(p<0.01). Examination of MIs of Model 4 suggested thatthe fit of the model to the data would improve if the error
terms of items 10 and 11 (MI=45.04) and items 20 and 21(MI=44.36) were allowed to correlate. However, because
items 10 and 11 did not belong to the same dimension, we
reasoned that only items 20 and 21 should be allowed tocorrelate. The modified five-factor model (Model 5) significantly improved the fit in comparison with Model 4[Δχ2 (1)=50.1, p<0.001], with an additional increase in all
fit indices. Comparison of model fit indices also indicatedthat Model 5 had a slightly better fit than Model 3.
Reliability
Table 3 shows that the internal consistencies of theoriginal four subscales are all sufficiently high to conclude that each factor is reliable. Cronbach’s α=0.90 for
increasing structural job resources, α=0.80 for decreasing
hindering job demands, α=0.76 for increasing social job
resources, and α=0.84 for increasing challenging job de-

235

Hisashi Eguchi, et al.: Japanese version of the job crafting scale

Table 1.

items, means, standard deviations, and exploratory factor analysis with unweighted least squares method and promax rotation (N=486)

No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Items
Incrasing structural job resources
I try to develop my capabilities
I try to develop my self professionallyI try to learn new things at work
I make sure that I use my capacities to the fullest
I decide on my own how I do things
Decreasing hindering job demands
I make sure that my work is mentally less intense
I try to ensure that my work is emotionally less intense
I manage my work so that I try to minimize contact
with people whose problems affect me emotionallyI organize my work so as to minimize contact withpeople whose expectations are unrealistic
I try to ensure that I do not have to make many difficult
decisions at work
I organize my work in such a way to make sure that I
do not have to concentrate for too long a period at once
Increasing social job resources
I ask my supervisor to coach me
I ask whether my supervisor is satisfied with my work
I look to my supervisor for inspiration
I ask others for feedback on my job performance
I ask colleagues for advice
Increasing challenging job demands
I try to ensure that my work is emotionally less intense
If there are new developments, I am one of the first tolearn about them and try them out
I organize my work so as to minimize contact withpeople whose expectations are unrealistic
I regularly take on extra tasks even though I do notreceive extra salary for them
I try to make my work more challenging by examining
the underlying relationships between aspects of my job

Mean SD

2.78
2.72
2.84
2.81
3.06

1.04
1.03
1.04
0.97
0.98

Eigen values

mands.
Association of job crafting with job demands, job
resources, and well-being
For hypotheses 1a and 1b, we found that increasing
challenging job demands was indeed positively related to

1

2

3

4

5

0.93 –0.01 0.00 0.06 –0.06
0.92 0.01 0.01 0.03 –0.06
0.82 0.03 0.03 –0.05 0.04
0.82 0.01 0.03 –0.05 0.02
0.31 0.26 –0.06 –0.05 0.15

Communality

0.82
0.83
0.75
0.72
0.31

2.07 0.97 –0.02
2.44 1.04 0.03
2.16 1.03 –0.02

0.01 –0.03
0.12 0.00
0.00 –0.02

0.03
0.09
0.80

0.80
0.58
0.06

0.63
0.47
0.69

2.00 1.01

0.07 –0.05

0.99 –0.10

0.89

0.03

1.82 0.87 –0.04 –0.09

0.12

0.52

0.26

0.51

1.86 0.83

0.27

0.14

0.27

0.25

0.71 0.04 0.02
0.76 –0.08 0.09
0.67 0.05 –0.12
0.63 –0.02 0.02
0.30 0.03 –0.06

0.50
0.54
0.57
0.41
0.14

1.60 0.81 –0.10
2.18 1.01 0.11

0.70 0.23 –0.01 –0.11
0.74 –0.02 –0.01 –0.03

0.55
0.64

1.92 1.03 –0.01

0.74

0.09 –0.04

0.55

2.57 1.17

0.08

0.60 –0.17

0.05

0.10

0.41

2.30 0.98

0.07

0.66

0.04 –0.12

0.17

0.62

6.30 2.64
29.99 12.57

1.37
6.54

0.91
4.31

0.57
2.69

0.64
0.36
0.02
0.33

0.43
0.11
0.33

0.26
0.36

0.51

6.69

2.99

1.83

1.29

1.87
1.42
1.63
1.65
2.40

0.03 –0.09

0.85 0.11 –0.15
0.68 –0.03 –0.07
0.78 0.02 0.18
0.78 –0.07 0.07
1.02 0.03 0.13

Factor contribution
Variance explained (%)
Inter-facotr correlations

Factor

2
3
4
5

0.01

1.00

challenging job demands (work load and time pressure;r=0.11, p<0.01); however, contrary to our hypothesis 1b,
we found a positive association between decreasing hindering job demands and hindering job demands (role ambiguity; r=0.21, p<0.01). Therefore, hypothesis 1a was
supported but Hypothesis 1b was not.

236

J Occup Health, Vol. 58, 2016

Table 2.

Results of confirmatory factor analyses: Comparison of goodness-of-fit indices among one-factor,
four-factor, modified four-factor models, five-factor models, and modified five-factor models (N=486)
Model

GFI

PGFI

NNFI

CFI

PNFI

RMSEA

χ2

df

p

Model 1 (One-factor model)
Model 2b) (Four-factor model)
Model 3 (Modified four-factor
model: covariates allowed)
Model 4 (Five-factor model)
Model 5 (Modified five-factor
model: covariates allowed)

0.60
0.85
0.88

0.49
0.68
0.69

0.54
0.85
0.87

0.55
0.88
0.90

0.49
0.74
0.76

0.16
0.08
0.07

4700.98
778.78671.74

189
183
182

<.001
<.001
<.001

0.90
0.91

0.70
0.70

0.90
0.90

0.93
0.94

0.76
0.77

0.07
0.06

555.71505.62

179
178

<.001
<.001

a)

GFI=Goodness of Fit Index, AGFI=Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index, NNFI=Non-normed Fit Index,
CFI=Comparative Fit Index, PNFI=Parsimony Normed Fit Index, RMSEA=Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
a)
All items measuring the four constructs load on one general job crafting factorb)
Each item loads on a hypothesized factors

For hypotheses 2a and 2b, we found that increasing
structural job resources was indeed significantly positively correlated with structural job resources (r=0.46; p<0.01 ) , and increasing social job resources was significantly positively correlated with social job resources (r=0.24; p<0.01) Therefore, hypotheses 2a and 2b were supported.
For hypotheses 3a and 3b, we indeed found significant
correlations for three of the four job crafting dimensions( decreasing hindering job demands was the exception )with work engagement and job satisfaction. Decreasing
hindering job demands was not related to work engagement (r=0.00, p>0.05) and was negatively related to job
satisfaction (r=−0.09, p<0.01). Increasing structural job
resources was negatively correlated with physical complaints ( r = − 0.11, p < 0.01 ) and psychological distress(r=−0.12, p<0.01), whereas decreasing hindering job demands was positively correlated with physical complaints(r=0.18, p<0.01) and psychological distress (r=0.20, p<0.01). Therefore, hypothesis 3a was partially supported,and hypothesis 3b was not supported.
Discussion
In this study, the English version of JCS was translated
into Japanese language (JCS-J), and the reliability and validity of the JCS-J were investigated using a sample ofJapanese employees. In doing so, we conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to evaluate factorial
validity and investigated the associations of job craftingwith job demands, job resources, and well-being to evaluate construct validity. In addition, we examined the internal consistency to evaluate the reliability of the job crafting instrument.
Factorial validity
Contrary to our expectations, exploratory factor analy-

sis of the JCS-J items extracted five factors, with items ofthe decreasing hindering job demands scale being loadedon two factors (factors 4 and 5) rather than on a single
factor. Items loaded on factor 4 refer to emotional demands, i.e., the degree to which workers avoid communication with those they do not get along with. Items loaded
on factor 5 are related to cognitive demands, i.e., the degree to which workers craft their job by themselves.
Although a series of confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the modified five-factor model (Model 5) fits
the data better than the modified four-factor model(Model 3), we decided to treat job crafting as a fourfactor model in line with the original study13) . We believethat this will facilitate comparability of the research findings. Please note that although the modified five-factor
model (Model 5) fits the data better than the modified
four-factor model (Model 3), the fit indices of the modified four-factor model (Model 3 ) showed a reasonable
and acceptable fit35).
Reliability
The internal consistency of each of the four dimensions
was sufficient (0.76<α<0.90). These coefficients are comparable with or higher than those reported in the original
study of the JCS Dutch version (0.75<α<0.82) 13 ) . Thus,
the Japanese version of JCS seems to have a level of reliability that is comparable with the Dutch version.
Construct validity (association with job demands, job
resources, and well-being)
The present study revealed that increasing challenging
job demands is positively related to challenging job demands. This result suggests that those participants who
indicated that they craft their work environment by looking for challenges indeed reported higher levels of workload and time pressure. However, decreasing hindering
job demands was positively (instead of negatively) corre-

237

Hisashi Eguchi, et al.: Japanese version of the job crafting scale

Table 3.

Means, standard deviations, internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α) and correlations of variables used in the study(n=972)
Mean SD

Demographics
1 Sex
2 Age
Job crafting
3 Increasing structural job resources
4 Decreasing hindering job demands
5 Increasing social job resources
6 Increasing challenging job demands
Job demands
7 Challenges
8 Hindrances
Job resources
9 Structural job resources
10 Social job resources
Well-being
11 Work engagement
12 Job satisfaction
13 Physical complaints
14 Psychological distress

1

3

4

5

6

7

(0.90)
0.22＊＊
0.35＊＊
0.61＊＊(0.80)
0.33＊＊
0.27＊＊(0.76)
0.41＊＊(0.84)

0.04
0.07＊
0.21＊＊ –0.02

0.11＊＊
0.01(0.82)
0.31

0.34＊＊
0.24＊＊

–0.05
–0.09

0.28＊＊ 0.53＊＊
0.15＊＊ 0.21＊＊
0.00
–0.04
0.03
–0.05

0.03
–0.13
0.18
0.33

1.18 0.39
2.89 1.02 –0.10＊＊
2.83
2.06
1.80
2.11

0.84
0.68
0.59
0.78

–0.12＊＊ –0.07＊–0.07＊ –0.11＊＊–0.04–0.25＊＊–0.15＊＊ 0.07＊

3.06 0.68 –0.15＊＊
2.47 0.43 –0.05

0.03
0.06

0.07＊
–0.12＊＊

2.74 0.48 –0.05
2.57 0.50 –0.04

0.02–0.14＊＊

0.46＊＊ –0.05
0.33＊＊ –0.14＊＊

2.63
2.45
1.78
1.98

0.15＊＊ 0.50＊＊ 0.00
0.05
0.29＊＊ –0.09＊＊
0.03–0.11＊＊ 0.18＊＊–0.06＊ –0.12＊＊ 0.20＊＊

1.03
0.81
0.53
0.58

0.03
0.02
0.08＊
0.01

8
Demographics
1 Sex
2 Age
Job crafting
3 Increasing structural job resources
4 Decreasing hindering job demands
5 Increasing social job resources
6 Increasing challenging job demands
Job demands
7 Challenges
8 Hindrances
Job resources
9 Structural job resources
10 Social job resources
Well-being
11 Work engagement
12 Job satisfaction
13 Physical complaints
14 Psychological distress

2

9

10

(0.80)
0.56＊＊(0.81)

11

0.16＊＊
0.24＊＊

12

13

14(0.66)–0.35＊＊–0.47＊＊–0.25＊＊ 0.53＊＊ 0.43＊＊ (0.92)–0.40＊＊ 0.64＊＊ 0.57＊＊ 0.53＊＊
0.35＊＊ –0.31＊＊ –0.40＊＊ –0.23＊＊ –0.36＊＊
0.49＊＊ –0.44＊＊ –0.46＊＊ –0.33＊＊ –0.50＊＊(0.86)
0.68＊＊ (0.93)＊＊p<0.01, ＊p<0.05. Cronbach’s α coefficients are displayed in parentheses.

＊＊

lated with hindering job demands. A possible reason isthat employees who suffered from high levels of hindering job demands may have used decreasing hindering job
demands as a coping strategy. Future longitudinal studies
are required to examine the possibility of this reversed

causation from job demands to job crafting.
In addition, we found significant positive correlations
between increasing structural job resources and the availability of structural job resources and between increasingsocial job resources and the availability of social job re-238sources. Increasing structural job resources may havemore impact on job design by allowing workers to acquire more responsibility and knowledge about the job 13) .
Increasing social job resources may have more impact on
the social aspects of the job and attaining satisfactory levels of interaction 13 ) . The results suggest that the participants who indicated that they craft their work environment by increasing structural and social job resourceswere more likely to also report a higher level of these job
resources.
We found significant correlations for three of the fourjob crafting dimensions ( decreasing hindering job demands was the exception) with work engagement and job
satisfaction. Decreasing hindering job demands was not
related to work engagement and was negatively related tojob satisfaction. Increasing structural job resources was
negatively correlated with physical complaints and psychological distress, whereas decreasing hindering job demands was positively correlated with physical complaints
and psychological distress. Well-being variables contained both attitude-related ( work engagement and job
satisfaction ) and health-related aspects ( physical complaints and psychological distress ) . In line with earlier
studies, three job crafting dimensions (increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources, andincreasing challenging job demands) were positively correlated with work engagement and job satisfaction 13,15 ) .
However, decreasing hindering job demands had no association with work engagement and a weak significant
negative association with job satisfaction. Therefore, hypothesis 3a is partially supported. Although job crafting
behaviors themselves already go beyond what is requiredfor particular work tasks, decreasing hindering job demands may focus on arranging the work environment sothat employees can perform their jobs properly within
their basic job requirements. Another possible explanation for these unexpected findings is that job crafting itself requires effort and energy. It is conceivable that reducing hindering job demands consumes so many psychological resources that it undermines the possible positive effects22). Moreover, because each job crafting dimension is correlated with the others, decreasing hindering
job demands leads to less use of the other three job crafting dimensions. Therefore, restricting the negative aspectsof a job does not seem to lead to positive attitudinal outcomes like work engagement and job satisfaction. As
mentioned by Tims et al., decreasing hindering job demands showed a different pattern of correlation with peerrated work engagement compared with the other three job
crafting behaviors 13 ) ; the mechanisms between each job
crafting dimension and positive attitudinal outcomes may
be different. Further studies are needed to determine theimpact of reducing hindering job demands and underwhich conditions it can help to reduce strain and increase
work engagement. Regarding hypothesis 3b, contrary to

J Occup Health, Vol. 58, 2016

our expectations, only one dimension, i. e. , increasing
structural job resources, was observed as predicted,
whereas decreasing hindering job demands showed opposite (i.e., positive) associations with health outcomes (i.e.,
physical complaints and psychological distress ) . The
other dimensions had no systematic relationships withhealth outcomes. These results generally suggested thatjob crafting behaviors are not effective in managing
physical and psychological health. The exception applies
when such behavior is involved with maximizing opportunities for learning, growth, and autonomy (i.e., increasing structural job resources). The unexpected finding for
decreasing hindering job demands indicates that those
who frequently engage in such crafting behavior are already experiencing high hindering demands ( evidenced
by the positive correlation in the present study), which
eventually lead to lower levels of well-being. Further longitudinal analyses are required to explore the sequential
processes among these variables.
Limitations and future directions
The present study has several limitations. First, it isbased on survey data that used self-reported measures. In
addition to self-report bias owing to, for example, negative effect, common method variance may have affected
the results, suggesting that the true associations between
variables may be weaker than those observed in thisstudy. Our findings should be replicated with objective
measures (e.g., peer ratings of work engagement and job
performance) in the future. A second possible limitationis that we used a cross-sectional design, which precludes
causal inferences. Longitudinal research that uncovers thecausal order of the associations between job crafting andjob demands, job resources, and psychological well-being
is required. Finally, the reliability and validity of thequestionnaire scale often depends on the characteristics ofthe sample. Generalization of the findings should be madewith caution.
Conclusion
This study confirms that JCS-J can adequately measure
job crafting and can be used in the Japanese context.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they haveno conflict of interest.
References
1) Demerouti E, Bakker AB, de Jonge J, Janssen PP, Schaufeli
WB. Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scand J Work Environ Health 2001; 27:279-286.
2) Karasek RA. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental
strain: Implications for job redesign. Admin Sci Quart 1979;
24: 285-308.

Hisashi Eguchi, et al.: Japanese version of the job crafting scale

3) Siegrist J. Adverse health effects of high-effort / low-rewardconditions. J Occup Health Psychol 1996; 1: 27-41.
4) Tsutsumi A, Kawakami N. A review of empirical studies on
the model of effort-reward imbalance at work: reducing occupational stress by implementing a new theory. Soc Sci Med
2004; 59: 2335-2359.
5) Gilbert-Ouimet M, Trudel X, Brisson C, Milot A, Vezina M.
Adverse effects of psychosocial work factors on blood pressure: systematic review of studies on demand-control-supportand effort-reward imbalance models. Scand J Work Environ
Health 2014; 40: 109-132.
6) Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands-resources model:
state of the art. J Manage Psychol 2007; 22: 309-328.
7) Bakker AB, Demerouti E. Job demands-resources theory. In:
Chen PY, Cooper CL, editors. Work and Wellbeing: Wellbeing: A complete reference guide. Volume III, New York: John
Wiley & Sons; 2014. p. 37-64.
8) Berg JM, Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When
proactivity requires adaptivity. J Organ Behav 2010; 31: 158186.
9) Tims M, Bakker AB. Job crafting: Towards a new model ofindividual job redesign. SA J Ind Psychol 2010; 36: 1-9.
10) Bakker AB, Tims M, Derks D. Proactive personality and job
performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement.
Hum Relat 2012; 65: 1359-1378.
11) The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. Safety
and health statistics [in Japanese]. [Online]. 2012[cited 2013
Sep. 17]; Available from: URL: http://www.mhlw.go.jp/touke
i/list/h24-46-50.html
12) Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad Manage Rev
2001; 26: 179-201.
13) Tims M, Bakker AB, Derks D. Development and validation of
the job crafting scale. J Vocat Behav 2012; 80: 173-186.
14) Tims M, Bakker AB, Derks D. The impact of job crafting on
job demands, job resources, and well-being. J Occup Health
Psychol 2013; 18: 230-240.
15) Nielsen K, Abildgaard JS. The development and validation ofa job crafting measure for use with blue-collar workers. WorkStress 2012; 26: 365-384.
16) Podsakoff NP, LePine JA, LePine MA. Differential challenge
stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes,
turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior : A
meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 2007; 92: 438-454.
17) Crawford ER, LePine JA, Rich BL. Linking job demands andresources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoreticalextension and meta-analytic test. J Appl Psychol 2010 ; 95 :834-848.
18) Cavanaugh MA, Boswell WR, Roehling MV, Boudreau JW.
An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among
U.S. managers. J Appl Psychol 2000; 85: 65-74.
19) Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Job demands, job resources, andtheir relationship with burnout and engagement : a multisample study. J Organ Behav 2004; 25: 293-315.

23920) Hobfoll SE, Stevan E. The influence of culture, community,
and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Appl Psychol 2001; 50: 337-421.
21) Petrou P, Demerouti E, Peeters MCW, Schaufeli WB, Hetland
J. Crafting a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and thelink to work engagement. J Organ Behav 2012 ; 33 : 11201141.
22) Lepine JA, Podsakoff NP, Lepine MA. A meta-analytic test of
the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors andperformance. Acad Manage J 2005; 48: 764-775.
23) Gorgievski MJ, Hobfoll SE. Work can burn us out or fire us
up: Conservation of resources in burnout and engagement. In:
Halbesleben JRB, editor. Handbook of stress and burnout inhealth care. Hauppage, NY: Nova Publishers; 2008. p. 7-22.
24) Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Euwema MC. Job resources buffer
the impact of job demands on burnout. J Occup Health Psychol 2005; 10: 170-180.
25) Demerouti E, Bakker AB. The job demands-resources model:
Challenges for future research. SA J Ind Psychol 2011; 37: 19.
26) Hino A, Inoue A, Kawakami N, et al. Buffering effects of job
resources on the association of overtime work hours with psychological distress in Japanese white-collar workers. Int Arch
Occup Environ Health[published online ahead of print October 5, 2014].
27) Salanova M, Schaufeli WB, Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB.
The gain spiral of resources and work engagement: Sustaining
a positive worklife. In: Bakker AB, Leiter MP, editors. Work
engagement : A handbook of essential theory and research.
New York: Psychology Press; 2010. p. 118-131.
28) Ministry of Education Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology and Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. Ethical
Guidelines for Epidemiological Research. [Online]. 2002[cited
2002 Jun. 17]; Available from: URL: www.lifescience.mext.g
o.jp/files/pdf/n1146_01.pdf29) Inoue A, Kawakami N, Tsutsumi A, et al. Association of job
demands with work engagement of japanese employees: comparison of challenges with hindrances (J-HOPE). PLoS ONE
2014; 9: e91583.
30) Inoue A, Kawakami N, Shimomitsu T, et al. Development of ashort questionnaire to measure an extended set of job demands, job resources, and positive health outcomes: The newbrief job stress questionnaire. Ind Health 2014; 52: 175-189.
31) Schaufeli W, Salanova M, González-romá V, Bakker A. The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Happiness Stud 2002; 3:
71-92.
32) Shimazu A, Schaufeli WB, Kosugi S, et al. Work engagementin Japan: Validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht
Work Engagement Scale. Appl Psychol 2008; 57: 510-523.
33) Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999; 6: 1-55.
34) Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen H. Structural equation model-

240

J Occup Health, Vol. 58, 2016

ling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electr J Bus Res
Methods 2008; 6: 53-60.
35) Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic

concepts, applications, and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates; 2001.

Appendix. 日本語版ジョブクラフティング尺度
以下の項目は，あなたの職場での行動を尋ねるものです．それぞれの質問文をよく読み，最もよく当てはまる選択肢
を○で囲んでください．

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

私は，自分の能力を伸ばすようにしている
私は，自分自身の専門性を高めようとしている
私は，仕事で新しいことを学ぶようにしている．
私は，自分の能力を最大限に生かせるように心がけている．
私は，自分の仕事のやり方を自分自身で決めている．
私は，仕事で思考力が消耗しすぎないようにしている．
私は，自分の仕事で感情的に張りつめないように心がけている．
私は，自分の感情を乱すような問題を抱えている人との関わりを，できるだけ減らすように自分の仕事に取り組んでいる．
私は，非現実的な要求をしてくる人とのかかわりをできるだ
け減らすように，自分の仕事を調整している．
私は，困難な決断をたくさんしなくてもいいように，自分の仕事を調整している．
私は，一度に長時間にわたって集中しなくてもいいように，
自分の仕事を調整している．
私は，上司に自分を指導してくれるように求める．
私は，上司が私の仕事に満足しているかどうか尋ねる．
私は，上司に仕事で触発される機会を求める．
私は，仕事の成果に対するフィードバックを，他者に求める．
私は，同僚に助言を求める．
面白そうな企画があるときには，私は，積極的にプロジェク
トメンバーとして立候補する．
仕事で新しい発展があれば，私は，いち早くそれを調べ，自ら試してみる．
今の仕事であまりやることがないときは，私は，新しいプロ
ジェクトを始めるチャンスととらえる．
私は，金銭的な報酬が追加されなくても，自分に課された以上の仕事を率先してこなしている．
私は，職務の様々な側面のつながりをよく考えながら，自分の仕事がさらに挑戦しがいのあるようにしている．

【下位尺度と該当項目】
構造的な（仕事の）資源の向上：1 〜 5
妨害的な（仕事の）要求度の低減：6 〜 11
対人関係における（仕事の）資源の向上：12 〜 16
挑戦的な（仕事の）要求度の向上：17 〜 21

まったく
ない

時々
ある

しばしば
ある

よく
ある

とても
よくある

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5