Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Improving Assessment of Work Related Mental Health Function Using the Work Disability Functional Assessment Battery (WD-FAB)

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose To improve the mental health component of the Work Disability Functional Assessment Battery (WD-FAB), developed for the US Social Security Administration’s (SSA) disability determination process. Specifically our goal was to expand the WD-FAB scales of mood & emotions, resilience, social interactions, and behavioral control to improve the depth and breadth of the current scales and expand the content coverage to include aspects of cognition & communication function. Methods Data were collected from a random, stratified sample of 1695 claimants applying for the SSA work disability benefits, and a general population sample of 2025 working age adults. 169 new items were developed to replenish the WD-FAB scales and analyzed using factor analysis and item response theory (IRT) analysis to construct unidimensional scales. We conducted computer adaptive test (CAT) simulations to examine the psychometric properties of the WD-FAB. Results Analyses supported the inclusion of four mental health subdomains: Cognition & Communication (68 items), Self-Regulation (34 items), Resilience & Sociability (29 items) and Mood & Emotions (34 items). All scales yielded acceptable psychometric properties. Conclusions IRT methods were effective in expanding the WD-FAB to assess mental health function. The WD-FAB has the potential to enhance work disability assessment both within the context of the SSA disability programs as well as other clinical and vocational rehabilitation settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Krahn GL, Walker DK, Correa-De-Araujo R. Persons with disabilities as an unrecognized health disparity population. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(Suppl 2):S198–S206.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Social Security Administration. Annual statistical report on the social security disability insurance program. Baltimore, MD: Social Security Administration; 2014. Available at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.

  3. Marfeo EE, Eisen S, Ni P, Rasch EK, Rogers ES, Jette A. Do claimants over-report behavioral health dysfunction when filing for work disability benefits?. Work. 2015;51(2):187–194.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Marfeo EE, Haley SM, Jette AM, Eisen SV, Ni P, Bogusz K, Meterko M, McDonough CM, Chan L, Brandt DE, Rasch EK. Conceptual foundation for measures of physical function and behavioral health function for social security work disability evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2013;94(9):1645–1652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brandt DE, Houtenville AJ, Huynh MT, Chan L, Rasch EK. Connecting contemporary paradigms to the social security administration’s disability evaluation process. J Disab Pol Stud. 2011;22(2):116–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mathiowetz N, Wunderlich GS, eds. Institute of Medicine (US) and National Research Council (US) Committee to Review the Social Security Administration’s Disability Decision Process Research. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000.

  7. Escorpizo R, Gmünder HP, Stucki G. Introduction to special section: advancing the field of vocational rehabilitation with the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). J Occup Rehab. 2011;21(2):121–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Marfeo EE, Ni P, Chan L, Rasch EK, McDonough CM, Brandt DE, Bogusz K, Jette AM. Interpreting physical and behavioral health scores from new work disability instruments. J Rehab Med. 2015;47(5):394–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Marfeo EE, Ni P, Haley SM, Bogusz K, Meterko M, McDonough CM, Chan L, Rasch EK, Brandt DE, Jette AM. Scale refinement and initial evaluation of a behavioral health function measurement tool for work disability evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2013;94(9):1679–1686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Marfeo EE, Ni P, Haley SM, Jette AM, Bogusz K, Meterko M, McDonough CM, Chan L, Brandt DE, Rasch EK. Development of an instrument to measure behavioral health function for work disability: item pool construction and factor analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2013;94(9):1670–1680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Marino ME, Meterko M, Marfeo EE, McDonough CM, Jette AM, Ni P, Bogusz K, Rasch EK, Brandt DE, Chan L. Work-related measures of physical and behavioral health function: test-retest reliability. Disab Health J. 2015;8(4):652–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Meterko M, Marfeo EE, McDonough CM, Jette AM, Ni P, Bogusz K, Rasch EK, Brandt DE, Chan L. Work disability functional assessment battery: feasibility and psychometric properties. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2015;96(6):1028–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Franche RL, Krause N. Readiness for return to work following injury or illness: conceptualizing the interpersonal impact of health care, workplace, and insurance factors. J Occup Rehab. 2002;12(4):233–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Saunders SL, Nedelec B. What work means to people with work disability: a scoping review. J Occup Rehab. 2014;24(1):100–110.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Escorpizo R, Stucki G. Disability evaluation, social security, and the international classification of functioning, disability and health: the time is now. J Occup Environ Med. 2013;55(6):644–651.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rivers D. Sample matching: representative sampling from internet panels. A white paper on the advantages of the sample matching methodology. Palo Alto, CA:YouGovPolymetrix; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  17. McDonough CM, Jette AM, Ni P, Bogusz K, Marfeo EE, Brandt DE, Chan L, Meterko M, Haley SM, Rasch EK. Development of a self-report physical function instrument for disability assessment: item pool construction and factor analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2013;94(9):1653–1660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ni P, McDonough CM, Jette AM, Bogusz K, Marfeo EE, Rasch EK, Brandt DE, Meterko M, Haley SM, Chan L. Development of a computer-adaptive physical function instrument for social security administration disability determination. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2013;94(9):1661–1669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Floyd FJ, Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(3):286–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Publications; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equat Model. 1999;6(1):1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Steiger JH. Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. Multivar Behav Res. 1990;25(2):173–180.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gibbons RD, Bock RD, Hedeker D, Weiss DJ, Segawa E, Bhaumik DK, Kupfer DJ, Frank E, Grochocinski VJ, Stover A. Full-information item bifactor analysis of graded response data. Appl Psychol Measur. 2007;31(1):4–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Edelen MO, Reeve BB. Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(1):5–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Orlando M, Thissen D. Further investigation of the performance of S-X2: an item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Appl Psychol Measur. 2003;27(4):289–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Roju NS, Van der Linden WJ, Fleer PF. IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Appl Psychol Measur. 1995;19(4):353–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Woods CM, Cai L, Wang M. The Langer-improved Wald test for DIF testing with multiple groups: evaluation and comparison to two-group IRT. Educ Psychol Measur. 2013;73(3):532–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cai L, Du Toit S, Thissen D. IRTPRO: flexible, multidimensional, multiple categorical IRT modeling [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Edelen MO, Stucky BD, Chandra A. Quantifying ‘problematic’DIF within an IRT framework: Application to a cancer stigma index. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(1):95–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cai L, du Toit S, Thissen D. IRTPRO: flexible, multidimensional, multiple categorical IRT modeling. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bjorner J, Smith K, Stone C, Sun X. IRTFIT: a macro for item fit and local dependence tests under IRT models. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  32. SAS Institute. SAS 9.1.3 Cary, NC: 2004.

  33. Quinn H, Thissen D, Liu Y, Magnus B, Lai JS, Amtmann D, Varni JW, Gross HE, DeWalt DA. Using item response theory to enrich and expand the PROMIS® pediatric self report banks. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):160–170.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II28–II42.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Social Security Administration-National Institutes of Health Interagency Agreements under the National Institutes of Health (contract nos. HHSN269200900004C, HHSN269201000011C, HHSN269201100009I, HHSN269201200005C), and by the National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Occupational Therapy, Tufts University, 574 Boston Ave. Suite 216G, Medford, MA, 02155, USA

    Elizabeth E. Marfeo

  2. Health & Disability Research Institute, Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany St. T5W, Boston, MA, 02118, USA

    Pengsheng Ni, Christine McDonough, Kara Peterik, Molly Marino & Alan M. Jette

  3. VHA Office of Analytics and Business Intelligence (OABI) Field-based at the ENRM Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 200 Springs Road (Mail Stop 152), Building 70, Room 137, Bedford, MA, 01730, USA

    Mark Meterko

  4. Rehabilitation Medicine Department, National Institutes of Health, CC 6100 Executive Blvd., Rm. 3C01 MSC 7515, Bethesda, MD, 20892-7515, USA

    Elizabeth K. Rasch, Leighton Chan & Diane Brandt

Authors
  1. Elizabeth E. Marfeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pengsheng Ni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christine McDonough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kara Peterik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Molly Marino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mark Meterko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Elizabeth K. Rasch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Leighton Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Diane Brandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Alan M. Jette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth E. Marfeo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments and standards.

Informed Consent

All subjects provided informed consent prior to participating in any study activities.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marfeo, E.E., Ni, P., McDonough, C. et al. Improving Assessment of Work Related Mental Health Function Using the Work Disability Functional Assessment Battery (WD-FAB). J Occup Rehabil 28, 190–199 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9710-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9710-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation