{
  "schemaVersion": 1,
  "capturedAt": "2026-10-29T10:31:13.615Z",
  "sha256": "02e588067d67faae48c00d86acd62850202673c7306171a3813b966d19f002ff",
  "work": {
    "id": "TAP-RDN-0020",
    "type": "RDN",
    "kind": "note",
    "key": "sonnentag-2007",
    "locale": "en",
    "path": "/research/sonnentag-2007/",
    "title": "TAP reading note: The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work",
    "description": "The Recovery Experience Questionnaire distinguishes psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery and control during nonwork time, yielding 16 items in four factors. It provides a way to discuss and measure different experiences; questionnaire scores do not themselves measure physiological recovery.",
    "rights": "© The Allostasis Project. All rights reserved. Reproduction or adaptation requires separate permission, subject to applicable legal exceptions.",
    "version": "0.3",
    "updatedAt": "2026-10-29",
    "editorial": {
      "contentType": "evidence-review",
      "reviewState": "draft",
      "reviewedAt": null,
      "reviewedVersion": null,
      "updatedAt": "2026-10-29",
      "version": "0.3",
      "author": null,
      "reviewer": null,
      "workflow": {
        "ai": {
          "usage": "used",
          "system": "OpenAI Codex",
          "scope": "Assisted source comparison, evidence extraction and bilingual research-note preparation. The materials consulted and unresolved scientific issues are specified in each note.",
          "version": "0.3",
          "tasks": [
            "Source comparison and evidence extraction",
            "Bilingual research-note drafting and editorial comparison"
          ]
        }
      },
      "revisions": [
        {
          "date": "2026-10-27",
          "version": "0.2",
          "description": "Reframed scope in terms of study design, population, outcomes and observation window."
        },
        {
          "date": "2026-10-29",
          "version": "0.3",
          "description": "Clarified the 465+465 analysis samples, factor structure and self-report validation limits."
        }
      ]
    },
    "original": {
      "id": "sonnentag-2007",
      "title": "The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work",
      "authors": "Sabine Sonnentag · Charlotte Fritz",
      "journal": "Journal of Occupational Health Psychology",
      "year": "2007",
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204",
      "doi": "10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204",
      "pmid": "17638488"
    },
    "references": [
      {
        "id": "sonnentag-2007",
        "title": "The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work",
        "authors": "Sabine Sonnentag · Charlotte Fritz",
        "journal": "Journal of Occupational Health Psychology",
        "year": "2007",
        "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204",
        "doi": "10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204",
        "pmid": "17638488"
      }
    ],
    "sections": [
      {
        "id": "finding",
        "title": "What the study found",
        "paragraphs": [
          "The Recovery Experience Questionnaire distinguishes psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery and control during nonwork time, yielding 16 items in four factors. It provides a way to discuss and measure different experiences; questionnaire scores do not themselves measure physiological recovery."
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "limits",
        "title": "Scope & limitations",
        "paragraphs": [
          "991 returned questionnaires were randomly split; after missing-data exclusions, calibration and cross-validation each included 465 people, totalling 930. A construct-association subsample included 271.",
          "Validation relied mainly on self-report and correlations. Factors overlap, particularly relaxation and control. Cross-language invariance, additional recovery experiences and incremental prediction of objective recovery trajectories require separate tests."
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "sample",
        "title": "Population & sample",
        "paragraphs": [
          "991 returned questionnaires were randomly split; after missing-data exclusions, calibration and cross-validation each included 465 people, totalling 930. A construct-association subsample included 271."
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "exposure",
        "title": "Exposure or intervention",
        "paragraphs": [
          "Item development and exploratory/confirmatory factor analyses of four experiences and related constructs."
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "outcomes",
        "title": "Outcomes",
        "paragraphs": [
          "Calibration CFI=.97 and RMSEA=.069; cross-validation CFI=.96 and RMSEA=.082. Fit and construct associations should be considered together."
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "duration",
        "title": "Time frame",
        "paragraphs": [
          "Scale development and concurrent construct validation, without common physiological follow-up."
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "funding",
        "title": "Research funding",
        "paragraphs": [
          "Not yet verified against the full text."
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "conflicts",
        "title": "Research conflicts of interest",
        "paragraphs": [
          "Not yet verified against the full text."
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "basis",
        "title": "Reading scope",
        "paragraphs": [
          "Institution-hosted original full text: item generation, sample splitting, CFA, construct associations and limitations. Cross-language and all subsequent validation studies are outside this note's scope."
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}