To develop, evaluate and validate the musculoskeletal health climate questionnaire (MHCQ), a multidimensional questionnaire for measuring musculoskeletal health climate.

Cross-sectional test–retest study including systematic scale development and psychometric validation.

The questionnaire was developed following the best practice recommendations for scale development outlined by Boateng et al (2017), including item development, scale development and scale evaluation with input from experts, stakeholders and the target population. Validation was conducted among employees in three physically demanding occupations in Denmark (care workers, slaughterhouse workers and residential painters), where a total of 1420 participants were recruited through labour unions. Of these, 796 completed the retest survey 30 days later. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA, respectively), internal consistency (Cronbach’s α), test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC)) and SEM were used to assess the psychometric properties. Criterion validity was examined via associations with pain points, pain medication use and sickness absence. Construct validity was assessed using correlations with the prevent for work questionnaire (P4Wq).

EFA and CFA supported a four-factor model (supervisor’s practices, workplace practices, worker involvement practices and workers’ pain practices) with good to excellent fit (comparative fit index, 0.96–0.99; root mean square error of approximation, 0.04–0.06). All scales showed high internal consistency (α=0.80–0.88) and excellent test–retest reliability (ICC=0.86–0.92). Associations with musculoskeletal outcomes supported criterion validity. Weak to moderate correlations with the P4Wq subscales (rho

The MHCQ provides a validated, multidimensional tool to assess workplace climate related to musculoskeletal health. It can support workplace assessments and prevention efforts by capturing shared perceptions of leadership, support, involvement and pain-related norms. Further longitudinal research and the use of objective outcome data are needed to assess predictive validity and strengthen the instrument’s applicability across settings.