Top

Published in:

01-03-2013 | Original Paper

The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 (Dutch Version): Examination of its Reliability, Validity and Responsiveness in the General Working Population

Authors: Femke I. Abma, Jac J. L. van der Klink, Ute Bültmann

Published in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation | Issue 1/2013

Abstract

Purpose: The promotion of a sustainable, healthy and productive working life attracts more and more attention. Recently the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire (WRFQ) has been cross-culturally translated and adapted to Dutch. This questionnaire aims to measure the health-related work functioning of workers with health problems. The aim of this study is to evaluate the reliability, validity (including five new items) and responsiveness of the WRFQ 2.0 in the working population. Methods: A longitudinal study was conducted among workers. The reliability (internal consistency, test–retest reliability, measurement error), validity (structural validity-factor analysis, construct validity by means of hypotheses testing) and responsiveness of the WRFQ 2.0 were evaluated. Results: A total of N = 553 workers completed the survey. The final WRFQ 2.0 has four subscales and showed very good internal consistency, moderate test–retest reliability, good construct validity and moderate responsiveness in the working population. The WRFQ was able to distinguish between groups with different levels of mental health, physical health, fatigue and need for recovery. A moderate correlation was found between WRFQ and related constructs respectively work ability and work productivity. A weak relationship was found with general self-rated health, work engagement and work involvement. Conclusion: The WRFQ 2.0 is a reliable and valid instrument to measure health-related work functioning in the working population. Further validation in larger samples is recommended, especially for test–retest reliability, responsiveness and the questionnaire’s ability to predict the future course of health-related work functioning.

Council of the European Union. Council conclusions on healthy and dignified ageing; 2980th employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs council meeting. 2009.

Amick BC III, Lerner D, Rogers WH, Rooney T, Katz JN. A review of health-related work outcome measures and their uses, and recommended measures. Spine. 2000;25:3152–60.PubMedCrossRef

Amick BC III, Gimeno D. Measuring work outcomes with a focus on health-related work productivity loss. In: Wittink H, Carr D, editors. Pain management: evidence, outcomes, and quality of life: a sourcebook. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008. p. 329–43.

Abma FI, van der Klink JJ, Terwee CB, Amick BC III, Bültmann U. Evaluation of the measurement properties of self-reported health-related work-functioning instruments among workers with common mental disorders. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2012;38:5–18.PubMed

Beaton DE, Tang K, Gignac MA, Lacaille D, Badley EM, Anis AH, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of five at-work productivity measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62:28–37.CrossRef

Loeppke R, Hymel PA, Lofland JH, Pizzi LT, Konicki DL, Anstadt GW, et al. Health-related workplace productivity measurement: general and migraine-specific recommendations from the ACOEM Expert Panel. J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45:349–59.PubMedCrossRef

Lofland JH, Pizzi L, Frick KD. A review of health-related workplace productivity loss instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22:165–84.PubMedCrossRef

Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Amick BC III, Shannon HS, McMurtry R, Roth JH, et al. Validity and responsiveness of presenteeism scales in chronic work-related upper-extremity disorders. Phys Ther. 2011;91:254–66.PubMedCrossRef

Tang K, Escorpizo R, Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Lacaille D, Zhang W, et al. Measuring the impact of arthritis on worker productivity: perspectives, methodologic issues, and contextual factors. J Rheumatol. 2011;38:1776–90.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Tang K, Pitts S, Solway S, Beaton D. Comparison of the psychometric properties of four at-work disability measures in workers with shoulder or elbow disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19:142–54.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Williams RM, Schmuck G, Allwood S, Sanchez M, Shea R, Wark G. Psychometric evaluation of health-related work outcome measures for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17:504–21.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Prasad M, Wahlqvist P, Shikiar R, Shih YC. A review of self-report instruments measuring health-related work productivity: a patient-reported outcomes perspective. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22:225–44.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Durand MJ, Vachon B, Hong QN, Imbeau D, Amick BC III, Loisel P. The cross-cultural adaptation of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire in Canadian French. Int J Rehabil Res. 2004;27:261–8.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Gallasch CH, Alexandre NMC, Amick B. Cross-cultural Adaptation, Reliability, and Validity of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire to Brazilian Portuguese. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17:701–11.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Abma FI, Amick BC III, Brouwer S, van der Klink JJL, Bültmann U. The cross-cultural adaptation of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire to Dutch. Work (in press).

16.

Lindbeck A, Snower DJ. Multitask Learning and the reorganization of work: from tayloristic to holistic organization. J Labor Econ. 2000;18:353–76.CrossRef

17.

Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2011;21:651–7.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Endicott J, Nee J. Endicott Work Productivity Scale (EWPS): a new measure to assess treatment effects. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1997;33:13–6.PubMed

19.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:22.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:539–49.PubMedCrossRef

22.

VSNU. Gedragscode voor gebruik van persoonsgegevens in wetenschappelijk onderzoek (Code of Behavior for using Personal Data in Scientific Research). 2005. (Available at the website of the Association of Universities in the Netherlands: www.vsnu.nl).

23.

Amick BC III, Habeck RV, Ossmann J, Fossel AH, Keller R, Katz JN. Predictors of successful work role functioning after carpal tunnel release surgery. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46:490–500.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–33.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Ware JE, Kosinski M, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B. How to score version 2 of the SF-12 Health Survey. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated; 2002.

26.

Vercoulen JH, Swanink CM, Fennis JF, Galama JM, van der Meer JW, Bleijenberg G. Dimensional assessment of chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res. 1994;38:383–92.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Beurskens AJ, Bultmann U, Kant I, Vercoulen JH, Bleijenberg G, Swaen GM. Fatigue among working people: validity of a Questionnaire measure. Occup Environ Med. 2000;57:353–7.PubMedCrossRef

28.

van Veldhoven M, Broersen S. Measurement quality and validity of the “need for recovery scale”. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60(Suppl 1):i3–9.PubMedCrossRef

29.

van Veldhoven M, Meijman T. Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting met een vragenlijst: De Vragenlijst Beleving en Beoordeling van de Arbeid (VBBA). [Questionnaire on Perception and Judgment of Work]. Amsterdam: NIA; 1994.

30.

Karasek RA. Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain - Implications for Job Redesign. Adm Sci Q. 1979;24:285–308.CrossRef

31.

Houtman I. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Karasek Job Content Questionnaire. Washington, DC: APA/NIOSH Conference on Work, Stress and Health; 1995.

32.

Karasek R, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman I, Bongers P, Amick B. The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol. 1998;3:322–55.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Karasek RA. Job Content Questionnaire and Users’s Guide. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering; 1985.

34.

Tuomi K, Ilmarinen J, Jahkola A, Katajarinne L, Tulkki A. Work Ability Index. In: Rautoja S, Pietiläinen R, editors. Finland: K-Print Oy Vantaa. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 1998.

35.

Ahlstrom L, Grimby-Ekman A, Hagberg M, Dellve L. The work ability index and single-item question: associations with sick leave, symptoms, and health–a prospective study of women on long-term sick leave. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010;36:404–12.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a Short Questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educ Psychol Measur. 2006;66:701–16.CrossRef

37.

Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Bevlogenheid: Een begrip gemeten. Gedrag en Organisatie. 2004;17:89–112.

38.

Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Test manual for the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. 2003. (Available at http://www.schaufeli.com).

39.

Warr P, Cook J, Wall T. Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. J Occup Psychol. 1979;52:129–48.CrossRef

40.

de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine. A practical guide. 1st ed. Cambridge: University Press; 2011.CrossRef

41.

Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.

42.

Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Koolhaas W, van der Klink JJ, Groothoff JW, Brouwer S. Towards a sustainable healthy working life: associations between chronological age, functional age and work outcomes. Eur J Public Health. 2011;22:424–9.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Statistics Netherlands. StatLine database, Available at: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb. Accessed June 2012.

45.

de Lange AH, Taris TW, Jansen PGW, Smulders P, Houtman ILD, Kompier MAJ. Age as a factor in the relation between work and mental health: results from the longitudinal TAS survey. In: Houdmont J, McIntyre S, editors. Occupational health psychology: European perspectives on research, Education and Practice Maia. Portugal: ISMAI Publications; 2006. p. 21–45.

Title: The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 (Dutch Version): Examination of its Reliability, Validity and Responsiveness in the General Working Population
Authors: Femke I. Abma
Jac J. L. van der Klink
Ute Bültmann
Publication date: 01-03-2013
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1053-0487
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3688
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9379-8

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 (Dutch Version): Examination of its Reliability, Validity and Responsiveness in the General Working Population

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Evaluation of Self-Reported Work Ability and Usefulness of Interventions Among Sick-Listed Patients

Predicting Work-Related Disability and Medical Cost Outcomes: Estimating Injury Severity Scores from Workers’ Compensation Data

What Circumstances Prompt a Workplace Discussion in Medical Evaluations for Back Pain?

Changes in Insurance Physicians’ Attitudes, Self-Efficacy, Intention, and Knowledge and Skills Regarding the Guidelines for Depression, Following an Implementation Strategy

Vocational Rehabilitation Evaluation and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF)

The Impact of Psychological Symptoms on Return to Work in Workers After Occupational Injury