Adaptation of the Russian-language version of the questionnaire "The Recovery Experience Questionnaire" by S. Sonnentag

Shumeiko Elena ORCID: 0009-0001-9653-9283 Assistant Professor; Faculty of Psychology; Saint Petersburg State University 199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg, emb. Makarova, 6, room 201 alena.shum2017@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Rodionova Elena Anatol'evna PhD in Pedagogy Associate Professor; Faculty of Psychology; St. Petersburg State University 199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg, emb. Makarova, 6, room 201 psyrea@mail.ru Other publications by this author

introduction

Nowadays, when the boundaries between professional and personal life are becoming increasingly blurred, the importance of proper rest in your free time is becoming especially important. Rest is traditionally perceived as a necessary element for restoring energy after a stressful day at work. However, many people face new obligations after the end of working hours, which are no less stressful than workers. This creates a shortage of time for true recovery, which can lead to chronic fatigue and occupational disorders such as burnout syndrome ^[1]. Therefore, it is especially important to consider rest as an important recovery process that helps reduce stress levels and improve overall well-being.

Among modern research on restoration, S. Sonnentag's concept deserves special attention ^[2]. She considers recovery as a psychophysiological process that promotes relaxation and resists work stress ^[3]. Sonnentag et al. There are two key aspects of recovery: the first is the process itself, which includes recovery activities and experiences, recovery experiences during rest; and the second is the result of recovery, that is, the psychological and / or physiological state of a person after rest.

In early studies, the emphasis was on analyzing rest as a specific activity or condition that occurs after this activity. In the context of this area, the authors discussed which types of activities contribute to the most effective recovery after work, which ratio of proactive and reactive rest is optimal for achieving the best recovery results, and how creative and/or physical activity affects an individual's psychophysiological resources. For example, it has been found that active leisure activities, such as meetings with friends, are associated with improved well-being ^[4]. Physical activity also has a positive effect on alertness and emotional state ^[5,6], while creative activity promotes creativity at work and employee engagement ^[7]. The results of research on passive leisure activities are mixed: some show a positive effect on well—being ^[4], others do not ^[8]. Motivation is an important factor: internal motivation can compensate for the negative effects of high-stress activities, and also enhances the positive effect on the recovery of low-stress activities ^[9]. The contradictory results showed that it is necessary to expand the context of studying rest, focusing not only on what people do, but also on what they feel during rest, namely on experiences, recovery experiences.

Sonnentag and Fritz proposed four different recovery experiences: psychological detachment (distancing), relaxation (relaxation), mastery and control ^[2]. Psychological detachment refers to the subjective experience of leaving work behind, "disconnecting" and forgetting about work after hours. Relaxation describes the experience of low sympathetic activation and is associated with a physiological and psychological sense of relaxation. The experience of mastery arises in difficult situations that lead to some success or achievement, for example, when learning a new language or when engaging in a complex hobby. Control reflects the experience of making independent decisions about what to do after hours and how to do it.

It was based on the theory of resource conservation ^[10] and the model of effort recovery ^[11]. The authors developed the Recovery Experience questionnaire "The Recovery Experience Questionnaire" (REQ). This technique demonstrates satisfactory psychometric properties, including a high internal consistency coefficient for all scales at the level of 0.85.

Empirical studies have shown that recovery experiences correlate with indicators of well-being. Thus, employees who are suspended from work after hours report lower levels of psychological stress and physical complaints, lower levels of exhaustion, and less need for recovery ^[12]. They experience higher levels of energy at work, lower levels of conflict between work and family, and higher levels of life satisfaction ^{[13, 14, 15]}.

Employees who experience a higher level of relaxation after hours experience lower levels of psychological stress and physical complaints, as well as higher levels of subjective well-being ^[16]. They experience a lower level of work-family conflict and are more satisfied with their lives in general ^[17].

The experience of mastering a skill outside of work hours is associated with a lower level of psychological stress and physical complaints, as well as a higher level of energy at work ^{[16, 18]}.

Employees who experience monitoring after hours report lower levels of psychological stress and physical complaints, have less need for recovery, and have better subjective health ^[16].

To summarize, the results for all four different recovery cases are similar, but the most consistent pattern has developed for relaxation and psychological detachment, two experiences that focus on physiological and mental unwinding and distancing from work. The results are less consistent in terms of skill and control, which, however, are also associated with increased employee well-being.

Currently, the recovery questionnaire is available in many languages and is widely used in foreign countries, including Spain ^[19], South Korea ^[20], Finland ^[21], Japan ^[16], South Africa ^[22], the Netherlands ^[23], Sweden ^[24], Peru ^[25], Lithuania ^[26], Brazil ^[27] and France ^[28], which emphasizes the universal importance and usefulness of REQ. Like other regions, the concept of recovery may be useful for research and practice of employee well-being in Russia. The purpose of this study is to validate REQ on a sample of Russian workers from various professions. In particular, its factorial and structural compliance, as well as reliability, measured through internal consistency, were analyzed.

METHODS

The Recovery Experience Questionnaire (REQ) is a 16-point scale designed to self-assess post-work recovery skills covering four key areas: psychological detachment (4 points), relaxation (4 points), mastery (4 points) and control (4 points):

● The psychological detachment scale evaluates a person's ability to distance himself from professional responsibilities, allowing him to forget about them outside the work context ("I'm distancing myself from my job" or "I'm taking a break from the demands of my job").

● The relaxation subscale measures how much a person is able to relax in their free time, and includes items such as "I do relaxing things" or "I use my free time to relax."

● The Mastery subscale examines a person's openness to new and complex challenges outside the professional environment ("I strive for intellectual challenges" or "I do things that help me broaden my horizons").

● The control subscale focuses on people's perception of the extent to which they can control their lives and schedules, for example, "I decide for myself how to spend my time."

Participants are asked to rate each of the 16 statements on a five—point Likert scale, where 1 corresponds to "Totally disagree" and 5 corresponds to "Totally agree." The REQ score for each subscale is formed as the sum of the responses to the corresponding items, ranging from 4 to 20, where higher values indicate a higher level of recovery.

To adapt the Russian-language version of the REQ questionnaire, both direct and reverse translations were performed, followed by adjustments to the questions to match the natural conversational style.

The final version of the questionnaire is shown in table 1.

Table 1 is the Russian–language version of the "Recovery Experience Questionnaire" (REQ-R) methodology.

The following techniques were used to verify the convergent validity of the questionnaire:

1. The methodology of "Subjective work and personal life balance" (A.N. Mospan, E.N. Osin et al., 2016) ^[29];

2. The scale of subjective well—being (A. Perrudet-Badoux, G. Mendelsohn, J. Chiche, adapted by M.V. Sokolova, 1996) ^[30];

3. The UWES Engagement Questionnaire (W. Schaufeli, adapted by D.A. Kutuzova, 2006) ^[31];

4. The Big Five questionnaire "BFI-2-S" (O. John, C. Soto, adapted by S.A. Shchebetenko, A.Y. Kalugin et al., 2022) ^[32];

5. The FFMQ five-factor mindfulness questionnaire (R. Baer et al., adapted by N.M. Yumartova and N. V. Grishina, 2013) ^[33];

6. Questionnaire on coping behavior in stressful situations "CISS" (N. Endler, J. Parker, adapted by T.L. Kryukova, 2001) ^[34];

7. The SCO Organizational Stress Scale (A. McLean, adapted by N.E. Vodopyanova, 1999) ^[35].

The study involved 302 people aged 20 to 40 years (the average age was 32.27 years, the average length of service was 11.53 years), of which 140 were men and 162 were women. All participants filled out an online questionnaire on a voluntary basis, and the participation process did not provide for financial or other incentives. Representatives of the following professional fields were represented: education (20.5%), psychology (17.5%), IT (16.5%), HR (14%), catering (14%), SMM and marketing (10.5%), industry (5%), etc.

In the process of assessing factor reliability, a preliminary factor analysis was performed, during which all 16 elements were included using the unweighted least squares method. Factors with eigenvalues exceeding one were identified, after which factor structures were obtained using Promax rotation. Next, a confirmatory factorial study was performed, in which a comparison was made between the compliance of a one-factor model, assuming that all the elements measuring the four constructs affect a single common recovery factor, and the compliance of a four-factor model, which implies that each element affects a separate hypothetical factor. In assessing the validity of the construct, the relationship of recovery experience with potential predictors such as personality characteristics, awareness, and coping strategies, as well as its consequences, including subjective well-being, work engagement, and work-life balance, was investigated. In the process of evaluating internal consistency, the values of the Cronbach's alpha coefficient were calculated.

THE RESULTS AND THEIR DISCUSSION

We evaluated the inter-element correlations and found that all the elements were significantly correlated with each other, with p values < 0,01. In addition, the elements within each subscale showed stronger correlations with each other than with elements from other dimensions.

The research factor analysis confirmed a four-factor structure with eigenvalues greater than one for each factor: relaxation, control, mastery, and psychological detachment. The interfacial correlations ranged from 0.31 to 0.63.

We compared the compliance indices between the one-factor (Model 1) and four-factor (Model 2) models. The results presented in Table 2 show that the four-factor model matches the data significantly better than the one-factor model.

Table 2 – Results of the confirmatory factor analysis: comparison of compliance indices between one-factor and four-factor models.

Correlations between latent factors were significant at p  < 0.01 and ranged from 0.33 to 0.65, in particular, between psychological detachment and relaxation (0.65), mastery (0.33) and control (0.41); between relaxation and mastery (0.53) and control (0.61); and between mastery and control (0.53). Factor loadings were significant at p  < 0.001 and high, ranging from 0.731 to 0.957.

We evaluated internal consistency and found that the reliability of the REQ scale was satisfactory, with high internal consistency: psychological detachment (Cronbach's alpha = 0.85), relaxation (Cronbach's alpha = 0.91), mastery (Cronbach's alpha = 0.89), and control (Cronbach's alpha = 0.87).

The external validity of the study was assessed through correlation analysis, which revealed the connections between the scale measurements and other structures with which they theoretically correlate. The results presented in table 3 below indicate a positive relationship between recovery experiences and factors such as subjective well-being and work-life balance.

Table 3 – Correlations of recovery experience measurements with potential predictors and consequences

In addition, the analysis demonstrates the presence of positive correlations between mindfulness and all recovery scales. This connection can be explained by the fact that mindfulness helps to improve emotional regulation and reduce stress, which, in turn, facilitates the processes of relaxation and distancing oneself from negative work-related experiences. Mindfulness also gives you the opportunity to better understand and control your reactions, and choose the most effective ways to recover from the moment.

All scales of recovery experience negatively correlate with the level of stress sensitivity, which may indicate that employees who are more stressed in the workplace have difficulty recovering from negative situations. Against this background, it should be noted that the relationship with personal characteristics and coping methods turned out to be at a low level, similar to the results obtained in the original study.

Interestingly, engagement is positively associated with aspects of recovery such as relaxation, mastery, and control, while psychological detachment demonstrates an inverse relationship. Similar data was found when testing the results on other samples (for example, in Japan).

CONCLUSIONS AND CONCLUSION

The Russian-language adaptation of the "Recovery Experience Questionnaire" demonstrates satisfactory internal consistency indicators comparable to the data of the original tool.

Factor analysis (CFA) confirmed a four-factor structure (psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery, and control). The four-factor model showed significantly better compliance compared to the one-factor model, which confirms its usefulness for assessing various aspects of recovery. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for each subscale exceed 0.85, which indicates the high internal reliability of the questionnaire.

Our results revealed significant links between recovery experiences and indicators such as an overall assessment of work-life balance, subjective well-being, and mindfulness, which supports theories that positive recovery experiences can mitigate the negative effects of occupational stress. At the same time, susceptibility to organizational stress, as a factor potentially impeding recovery, is negatively associated with all subscales.

The key point is that we have kept the original points of the questionnaire, which allows us to compare the results in different countries and among different professional groups. However, the study has limitations, including a small sample size (302 people). Future research should include more diverse professional groups to further validate the reliability of REQ-R. Despite the sample size, the results obtained show sufficient statistical significance to conclude that the measurements were reliable.