Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 87–104 | Cite as

Workstyle: Development of a Measure of Response to Work in Those With Upper Extremity Pain

  • Michael Feuerstein
  • Rena A. Nicholas
  • Grant D. Huang
  • Amy J. Haufler
  • Glenn Pransky
  • Michele Robertson


Workstyle or the behavioral, cognitive, and physiological response that can occur in some individuals to increases in work demands has been proposed to help explain the link between ergonomic and psychosocial factors in the exacerbation of work-related upper extremity symptoms. Currently, there is no measure of this construct, hindering research on its potential link to work related upper extremity problems in the workplace. The present study describes the development and psychometric properties of a measure of workstyle. Questionnaire items reflecting dimensions of workstyle as per the original conceptualization were generated primarily through focus groups with office workers and separate groups held with occupational physicians, physical therapists, occupational health psychologists, and experts in ergonomics, behavioral science, and human factors. Items created through this process were then administered to 282 symptomatic and asymptomatic office workers. Measures of job stress, ergonomic risk, upper extremity symptoms, and functional limitations were also obtained. The workstyle questionnaire was divided into two broad dimensions: Characteristic responses to work and Response to increased work demands. The scale development process as indicated by factor analysis yielded subscales that are theoretically consistent with the workstyle construct. These subscales include: working through pain, social reactivity at work, limited workplace support, deadlines/pressure, self imposed work pace/workload, breaks, mood, pain/tension, autonomic response, and numbness tingling. The internal consistency of these subscales varied from 0.61 to 0.91, n = 282 while the test–retest (3 weeks) reliability for the various subscales ranged from r = 0.68 to 0.89, n = 143. A total workstyle score was computed that excluded the pain/tension and numbness/tingling subscales to avoid circular reasoning in terms of the measure’s relationship to outcomes of pain and functional limitations. The total score was stable over time and provided unique variance in relation to traditional measures of job stress. Total workstyle score was significantly associated with higher levels of pain, and greater functional limitations. Dimensions of the workstyle construct were identified. The workstyle measure possesses acceptable psychometric properties in office workers who work with computers. This measure can be used in future studies on the interaction of psychosocial and ergonomic factors in the exacerbation of upper extremity pain and functional limitation.


workstyle upper extremity symptoms risk factors job stress pain functional limitations office workers ergonomic risk 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bongers PM, de Winter CR, Kompier MAJ, Hildebrandt VH. Psychosocial factors at work and musculoskeletal disease. Scand J Work Environ Health 1993; 19: 297–312.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huang GD, Feuerstein M, Sauter SL. Occupational stress and work-related upper extremity disorders: Concepts and models. Am J Industr Med 2002; 41: 298–314.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. Musculoskeletal disorders and the workplace: Low back and upper extremities. Panel on Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Workplace. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feuerstein M. Workstyle: Definition, empirical support, and implications for prevention, evaluation, and rehabilitation of occupational upper-extremity disorders. In: Moon SD, Sauter SL, eds. Beyond biomechanics: Psychosocial aspects of musculoskeletal disorders in office work. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feuerstein M, Huang GD, Pransky G. Workstyle and work-related upper extremity disorders. In: Gatchel RJ, Turk DC, eds. Psychosocial factors in pain. New York: Guilford, 1999, pp. 175–192.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feuerstein M, Armstrong T, Hickey P, Lincoln A. Computer keyboard force and upper extremity symptoms. J Occup Environ Med 1997; 30: 1144–1153.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feuerstein M, Carosella AM, Burrell LM, Marshall L, DeCaro J. Occupational upper extremity symptoms in sign language interpreters: Prevalence, and correlates of pain, function, and work disability. J Occup Rehab 1997; 7: 187–205.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feuerstein M, Fitzgerald TE. Biomechanical factors affecting upper extremity cumulative trauma disorders in sign language interpreters. J Occup Med 1992; 34: 257–264.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haufler AJ, Feuerstein M, Huang GD. Job stress, upper extremity pain and functional limitations in symptomatic computer users. Am J Industr Med 2000; 38: 507–515.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salvendy G. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (2nd edn.). New York: Wiley, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Soloman DH, Katz JN, Bohn R, Mogun H, Avorn J. Nonoccupational risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome. J Gen Intern Med 1999; 14: 310–314.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Questionnaire. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hales TR, Sauter SL, Peterson MR, Fine LJ, Putz-Anderson V, Schliefer LR, Ochs TT, Bernard BP. Musculoskeletal disorders among visual display terminal users in a telecommunications company. Ergonomics 1994; 37: 1603–1621.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bernard B, Sauter S, Fine L, Petersen M, Hales T. Job task and psychological risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders among newspaper employees. Scand J Work Environ Health 1994; 20: 417–426.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. Lancet 1974; 9: 1127–1131.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feuerstein M, Huang GD, Haufler AJ, Miller JK. Development of a screen for predicting clinical outcomes in patients with work-related upper extremity disorders. J Occup Environ Med 2000; 40: 546–555.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sauter SL, Swanson NG. An ecological model of musculoskeletal disorders in office work. In Moon SD, Sauter SL, eds. Beyond biomechanics: Psychosocial aspects of musculoskeletal disorders in office work. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hurrell JJ, McLaney MA. Exposure to job stress—A new psychometric instrument. Scand J Work Environ Health 1988; 14(S1): 27–28.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moos RH, Moos BH. Life stressors and social resources inventory adult form manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    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: 322–355.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Crowne DP, Marlowe D. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J Consult Psychol 1960; 24: 349–354.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pransky G, Feuerstein M, Himmelstein J, Katz JN, Vickers-Lahti M. Measuring functional outcomes in work-related upper extremity disorders. J Occup Environ Med 1997; 39: 1195–1202.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller S. SF-12: How to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scales (3rd edn.). Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric, 1998.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marcotte A, Barker R, Joyce M, Miller N, Klinenberg EJ, Cogburn CD, Goddard DE. Preventing work-related musculoskeletal illnesses through ergonomics: The Air Force PREMIER Program. Vol. 2: Job Requirements and Physical Demands Survey methodology guide. Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Occupational and Environmental Health Directorate, 1997.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dane D, Feuerstein M, Huang GD, Dimberg L, Ali D, Lincoln A. Measurement properties of a self-report index of ergonomic exposures. J Occup Environ Med 2002; 44: 73–81.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Borg G. Psychophysiological scaling with applications in physical work and the perception of exertion. Scand J Work Environ Health 1990; 16(Suppl): 55–58.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    SPSS Base 10.0 Applications guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc, 1999.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nicholas RA, Feuerstein M, Suchday S. Response to occupational stressors and ergonomic risks: A new perspective on work-related upper extremity symptoms. J Occup Environ Med, in press.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Feuerstein M. Biobehavioral mechanisms of work-related upper extremity disorders: A new agenda for research and practice. Am J Industr Med 2002; 41: 293–297.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Melin B, Lundberg U. A biopsychosocial approach to work-stress and musculoskeletal disorders. J Psychophysiol 1997; 11: 238–247.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Novak CB, Mackinnon SE. Multilevel nerve compression and muscle imbalance in work-related neuromuscular disorders. Am J Industr Med 2002; 41: 343–352.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Remple D, Dahlin L, Lundborg G. Pathophysiology of nerve compression syndromes: Response of peripheral nerves to loading. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81A: 1600–1610.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    McLean L, Tingley M, Scott RN, Rickards J. Computer terminal work and the benefit of microbreaks. Appl Ergonom 2001; 32(3): 225–237.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bureau of Labor Statistics. US Department of Labor Survey of occupational injuries and illnesses. (Report No. USDL 01-71); 2001. Available at
  35. 35.
    Gerr F, Marcus M, Ensor C, Kleinbaum D, Cohen S, Edwards A, Gentry E, Ortiz DJ, Monteilh C. A prospective study of computer users: I. study design and incidence of musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders. Am J Industr. Med. 2002; 41: 221–235.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Buer N, Linton SJ. Fear-avoidance beliefs and catastrophizing: occurrence and risk factor in back pain and ADL in the general population. Pain 1999; 3: 485–491.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory (3rd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Guadagnoli E, Velicer WF. Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychol Bull 1988; 103: 265–275.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shaw WS, Feuerstein M, Haufler AJ, Berkowitz SM, Lopez MS. Working with back pain: Problem solving orientation and function. Pain 2001; 93: 129–137.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Feuerstein
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 7
  • Rena A. Nicholas
    • 1
  • Grant D. Huang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Amy J. Haufler
    • 1
  • Glenn Pransky
    • 5
    • 6
  • Michele Robertson
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Medical and Clinical PsychologyBethesda
  2. 2.Department of Preventive Medicine and BiometricsUniformed Services University of the Health SciencesBethesda
  3. 3.Division of Behavioral Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, GeorgetownUniversity School of MedicineColumbia
  4. 4.Office of Research and DevelopmentU.S. Department of Veterans AffairsHopkinton
  5. 5.Liberty Mutual Research Center for Safety and HealthHopkinton
  6. 6.University of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcester
  7. 7.Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Uniformed ServicesUniversity of the Health SciencesBethesda

Personalised recommendations