Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 3/2014

Open Access 01-09-2014

The Work-ability Support Scale: Evaluation of Scoring Accuracy and Rater Reliability

Authors: Lynne Turner-Stokes, Joanna Fadyl, Hilary Rose, Heather Williams, Philip Schlüter, Kathryn McPherson

Published in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation | Issue 3/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose The Work-ability Support Scale (WSS) is a new tool designed to assess vocational ability and support needs following onset of acquired disability, to assist decision-making in vocational rehabilitation. In this article, we report an iterative process of development through evaluation of inter- and intra-rater reliability and scoring accuracy, using vignettes. The impact of different methodological approaches to analysis of reliability is highlighted. Methods Following preliminary evaluation using case-histories, six occupational therapists scored vignettes, first individually and then together in two teams. Scoring was repeated blind after 1 month. Scoring accuracy was tested against agreed ‘reference standard’ vignette scores using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for total scores and linear-weighted kappas (kw) for individual items. Item-by-item inter- and intra-rater reliability was evaluated for both individual and team scores, using two different statistical methods. Results ICCs for scoring accuracy ranged from 0.95 (95 % CI 0.78–0.98) to 0.96 (0.89–0.99) for Part A, and from 0.78 (95 % CI 0.67–0.85) to 0.84 (0.69–0.92) for Part B. Item by item analysis of scoring accuracy, inter- and intra-rater reliability all showed ‘substantial’ to ‘almost perfect’ agreement (kw ≥ 0.60) for all Part-A and 8/12 Part-B items, although multi-rater kappa (Fleiss) produced more conservative results (mK = 0.34–0.79). Team rating produced marginal improvements for Part-A but not Part-B. Four problematic contextual items were identified, leading to adjustment of the scoring manual. Conclusion This vignette-based study demonstrates generally acceptable levels of scoring accuracy and reliability for the WSS. Further testing in real-life situations is now warranted.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Waddell G, Byurton AK, Kendall NAS. Vocational rehabilitation—what works, for whom, and when? (Report for the Vocational Rehabilitation Task Group). London: The Stationary Office; 2008. Waddell G, Byurton AK, Kendall NAS. Vocational rehabilitation—what works, for whom, and when? (Report for the Vocational Rehabilitation Task Group). London: The Stationary Office; 2008.
2.
go back to reference Fadyl JK, McPherson KM, Schlüter PJ, Turner-Stokes L. Factors contributing to work-ability for injured workers: literature review and comparison with available measures. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(14):1173–83.PubMedCrossRef Fadyl JK, McPherson KM, Schlüter PJ, Turner-Stokes L. Factors contributing to work-ability for injured workers: literature review and comparison with available measures. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(14):1173–83.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Heinemann AW, Linacre JM, Wright BD, Hamilton BB, Granger C. Relationships between impairment and physical disability as measured by the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74(6):566–73.PubMedCrossRef Heinemann AW, Linacre JM, Wright BD, Hamilton BB, Granger C. Relationships between impairment and physical disability as measured by the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74(6):566–73.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Law J, Fielding B, Jackson D, Turner-Stokes L. The UK FIM + FAM Extended Activities of Daily Living module: evaluation of scoring accuracy and reliability. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(10):825–30.PubMedCrossRef Law J, Fielding B, Jackson D, Turner-Stokes L. The UK FIM + FAM Extended Activities of Daily Living module: evaluation of scoring accuracy and reliability. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(10):825–30.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Turner-Stokes L, Nyein K, Turner-Stokes T, Gatehouse C. The UK FIM + FAM: development and evaluation. Clin Rehabil. 1999;13(4):277–87.PubMedCrossRef Turner-Stokes L, Nyein K, Turner-Stokes T, Gatehouse C. The UK FIM + FAM: development and evaluation. Clin Rehabil. 1999;13(4):277–87.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Spalding NJ, Phillips T. Exploring the use of vignettes: from validity to trustworthiness. Qual Health Res. 2007;17(7):954–62.PubMedCrossRef Spalding NJ, Phillips T. Exploring the use of vignettes: from validity to trustworthiness. Qual Health Res. 2007;17(7):954–62.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Salomon JA, Tanson A, Murray CL. Using vignettes to improve cross-population comparability of health surveys: concepts, design, and evaluation techniques. Global programme for Evidence on health policy (GPE) discussion paper no. 41.Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2001. Salomon JA, Tanson A, Murray CL. Using vignettes to improve cross-population comparability of health surveys: concepts, design, and evaluation techniques. Global programme for Evidence on health policy (GPE) discussion paper no. 41.Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2001.
8.
go back to reference Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Wiley; 1981. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Wiley; 1981.
9.
go back to reference Chen B, editor. A macro to calculate kappa statistics for categorizations by multiple raters. Paper 155-30. SAS Users Group International (SUGI 30) 2005; Philadelphia. Chen B, editor. A macro to calculate kappa statistics for categorizations by multiple raters. Paper 155-30. SAS Users Group International (SUGI 30) 2005; Philadelphia.
11.
go back to reference Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46.CrossRef Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968;70:213–20.PubMedCrossRef Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968;70:213–20.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference 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(1):34–42.PubMedCrossRef 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(1):34–42.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull. 1971;76:378–82.CrossRef Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull. 1971;76:378–82.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.PubMedCrossRef Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Reichenheim ME. Confidence intervals for the kappa statistic. Stata J. 2004;4(4):421–8. Reichenheim ME. Confidence intervals for the kappa statistic. Stata J. 2004;4(4):421–8.
Metadata
Title
The Work-ability Support Scale: Evaluation of Scoring Accuracy and Rater Reliability
Authors
Lynne Turner-Stokes
Joanna Fadyl
Hilary Rose
Heather Williams
Philip Schlüter
Kathryn McPherson
Publication date
01-09-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation / Issue 3/2014
Print ISSN: 1053-0487
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3688
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-013-9486-1

Other articles of this Issue 3/2014

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 3/2014 Go to the issue