Comparison of the Psychometric Properties of Four At-Work Disability Measures in Workers with Shoulder or Elbow Disorders
Introduction To better capture the extent of work disability following an occupational injury, clinical researchers are beginning to recognize the importance of considering not only levels of absenteeism, but also disabilities experienced while “at-work”. Although at-work disability measures are available in the literature, currently there is little insight on the selection of specific measures that may be best suited for a given population or situation. The objective of this study is to assess and compare the measurement properties of four self-report at-work disability measures in workers with shoulder or elbow disorders. Methods Study sample consisted of 80 patients attending a shoulder and elbow specialty clinic operated by the Worker Safety Insurance Board of Ontario. Internal consistency reliability, validity, and patient preference of four at-work disability measures were compared in a cross-sectional design. Selected measures included the work module of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Outcome Measure, Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ-16), Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA-WIS), and Stanford Presenteeism Scale. Results All four measures demonstrated evidence of internal consistency reliability (alpha = 0.76–0.90) and construct validity, although only modest correlations against work-oriented constructs (r = 0.37–0.60) were observed. The RA-WIS was most preferred by respondents (44.6%) over the other measures. Conclusions Although no single scale stood out as clearly superior, the WLQ-16 was considered the best overall performer. Variable performance between the scales suggests some divergence in the way these measures conceptualize “at-work disability”, which may be important to consider when selecting instruments for future studies.
KeywordsMeasurement Reliability and validity Upper extremity At-work disability Presenteeism
This study was supported by St. Michael’s Hospital. Dr. Dorcas Beaton is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) New Investigator’s Award. The authors would like to extend our utmost appreciation and thanks to Taucha Inrigt and Elaine Harniman for their hard work and dedication to this project. We would also like to thank Sonia Pagura and Jeff Hewer at the Shoulder and Elbow Specialty Clinic for their support and assistance throughout the course of this study.
- 2.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. doi:10.1097/01.jom.0000063619.37065.e2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Collins JJ, Baase CM, Sharda CE, Ozminkowski RJ, Nicholson S, Billotti GM, et al. The assessment of chronic health conditions on work performance, absence, and total economic impact for employers. J Occup Environ Med. 2005;47:547–57. doi:10.1097/01.jom.0000166864.58664.29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Lynch W, Riedel J. Measuring employee productivity: a guide to self-assessment tools. Scottsdale: Institute for Health & Productivity Management & William Mercer; 2001.Google Scholar
- 22.Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (WSIB). WSIB specialty clinics. http://www.wsib.on.ca/wsib/wsibsite.nsf/public/HealthSpecialtyPrograms (2002). Accessed 23 July 2008.
- 23.Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C. Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther. 2001;14:128–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Institute for Work & Health. Scoring the DASH. http://www.dash.iwh.on.ca (1997). Accessed 5 July 2008.
- 27.Streiner D, Norman G. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications; 1996.Google Scholar
- 28.Nunnally J, Bernstein I. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.Google Scholar