Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparing Precarious Employment Across Countries
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparing Precarious Employment Across Countries
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparing Precarious Employment Across Countries
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparing Precarious Employment Across Countries
2021
Overview
Comparing precarious employment (PE) across countries is essential to deepen the understanding of the phenomenon and to learn from country-specific experiences. However, this is hampered by the lack of internationally meaningful measures of PE. We aim to address this point by assessing the measurement invariance (MI) of the Employment Precariousness Scale for Europe (EPRES-E), an adaptation of the EPRES construct in the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS). EPRES-E consists of 13 proxy-indicators sorted into six dimensions: temporariness, disempowerment, vulnerability, wages, exercise of rights, unpredictable working times. Drawing on EWCS-2015, MI of the second-order factor model was tested in a sample of 31,340 formal employees by means of (a) multi-group confirmatory factor analyses, and (b) the substantive exploration of EPRES-E mean scores in each country. The results demonstrate that threshold invariance holds for the first-order structure (dimensions) of 22 countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK), but only metric invariance is attained by the second-order structure. The latter is supported by the exploration of mean scores, where we found that different score patterns in each dimension lead to similar overall EPRES-E scores, suggesting that PE is configured by different sources within the six dimensions in each country according to their broader socio-political trajectories. We conclude that, although EPRES-E can be used for comparative purposes in 22 European countries, the scores of each dimension must be reported alongside the overall EPRES-E score.
Publisher
Springer Science + Business Media,Springer Netherlands,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
