Advertisement

Examining Work-Related Functioning in a Physical Therapy Outpatient Clinic: Validity and Reliability of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ)

  • Aline Husmann
  • Reuben EscorpizoEmail author
  • Monika E. Finger
Article

Abstract

Purpose Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are often associated with long-term sick leave, productivity loss, and reduced work functioning. However, measures that assess work-related functioning are sparse. Objective To assess the psychometric properties of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ)-German version in patients with MSDs in an outpatient physical therapy practice. Methods Psychometric study including patients with MSDs with restricted work participation. Data was collected in a single physical therapy outpatient clinic. For construct validity, we developed a priori hypotheses on the correlation between the functioning part of WORQ (40 items) and other questionnaires with similar concepts. For test–retest reliability, WORQ was administered twice, 7 days apart. We examined internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha) and Minimal Detectable Change (MDC). Feasibility of WORQ was examined using feedback from patients and physical therapists. Results There were 51 study participants. Test–retest of WORQ sum score was 0.80 (p < 0.01) (Spearman’s rho). Internal consistency was 0.94 and MDC established at 9.2%. WORQ correlated with general health (r = − 0.49), with HADS (r = 0.55), and with quality of life (WHOQOL) (r = − 0.47). WORQ had the highest correlation with WHODAS 2.0 (r = 0.81). Patients rated WORQ as easy to answer and meaningful to their experience. Conclusions When evaluating self-reported work-related functioning, the WORQ-German version was demonstrated to be a valid, reliable, and easy to administer questionnaire for our sample of patients with MSDs in an outpatient PT clinic.

Keywords

Work rehabilitation International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health ICF Psychometric properties Validity Reliability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all physical therapists at Loewencenter Lucerne for their help with the data collection and the patient/clients for their participation.

Author contributions

AH, MF, RE—Concept/idea/research design. AH, MF, RE—Writing. AH—Data collection, AH, MF—Data analysis. AH, MF—Project management. RE—Consultation (including review of manuscript before submitting).

Funding

This study was supported by the Swiss Paraplegic Research as part of a Master Thesis.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5).

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study. The Ethics Committee EKNZ, Switzerland (Project-ID: 2017-00552) granted full ethical approval of this research study.

References

  1. 1.
    Waddell G, Burton AK, Kendall NA. Vocational rehabilitation: what works, for whom, and when? London: The Stationary Office; 2008. http://www.kmghp.com/assets/hwwb-vocational-rehabilitation.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2018.
  2. 2.
    Bachmann N, Burla L, Kohler D. Gesundheit in der Schweiz –Fokus chronische Erkrankungen Nationaler Gesundheitsbericht 2015. Bern: Horgrefe Verlag; 2015.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roelfs DJ, Shor E, Davidson KW, Schwartz JE. Losing life and livelihood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of unemployment and all-cause mortality. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(6):840–854.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Selander J, Marnetoft SU, Bergroth A, Ekholm J. Return to work following vocational rehabilitation for neck, back and shoulder problems: risk factors reviewed. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(14):704–712.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    EULAR Position Paper on Health and Safety at Work: Fighting rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases together [database on the Internet]. 2018. https://www.eular.org/myUploadData/files/eular_position_paper_on_health_and_safety_at_work.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2018.
  6. 6.
    United States Bone and Joint Initiative (USBJI). Opportunities for action—the impact of musculoskeletal disorders on americans. Rosemont: USBJI; 2016.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    OECD, HM. The Next Generation of Health Reforms: Ministerial Statement. Paris: 2017.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nutzi M, Trezzini B, Medici L, Schwegler U. Job matching: an interdisciplinary scoping study with implications for vocational rehabilitation counseling. Rehabil Psychol. 2017;62(1):45–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Escorpizo R, Reneman MF, Ekholm J, Fritz J, Krupa T, Marnetoft SU, et al. A conceptual definition of vocational rehabilitation based on the ICF: building a shared global model. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(2):126–133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaech Moll VM, Escorpizo R, Portmann Bergamaschi R, Finger ME. Validation of the comprehensive ICF core set for vocational rehabilitation from the perspective of physical therapists: international delphi survey. Phys Ther. 2016;96(8):1262–1275.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boucaut R. International Federation of Physical Therapists working in Occupational Health and Ergonomics (IFPTOHE). WCPT. 2019. https://www.wcpt.org/IFPTOHE. Accessed 31 May 2019.
  12. 12.
    WCPT. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. [updated 10/2016]. https://www.wcpt.org/icf. Accessed 31 May 2019.
  13. 13.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Escorpizo R, Finger ME, Glassel A, Gradinger F, Luckenkemper M, Cieza A. A systematic review of functioning in vocational rehabilitation using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(2):134–146.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Selb M, Escorpizo R, Kostanjsek N, Stucki G, Ustun B, Cieza A. A guide on how to develop an international classification of functioning, disability and health core set. Eur J Phys Rehabilit Med. 2015;51(1):105–117.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Finger ME, Escorpizo R, Glassel A, Gmunder HP, Luckenkemper M, Chan C, et al. ICF Core Set for vocational rehabilitation: results of an international consensus conference. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(5):429–438.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chamberlain MA, Fialka Moser V, Schuldt Ekholm K, O’Connor RJ, Herceg M, Ekholm J. Vocational rehabilitation: an educational review. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(11):856–869.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Finger ME, Escorpizo R, Bostan C, De Bie R. Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ): development and preliminary psychometric evidence of an ICF-based questionnaire for vocational rehabilitation. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24(3):498–510.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Finger M, De Bie RA, Nowak D, Escorpizo R. Development and Testing of an ICF-based Questionnaire to evaluate functioning in vocational rehabilitation: The Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ). In: Escorpizo R, Brage S, Homa DB, Stucki G, editors. Handbook of vocational rehabilitation and disability evaluation. Basel: Springer; 2015.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Finger M, Escorpizo R. Homepage: Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ). Swiss Paraplegic Research/ICF Research Branch. 2013. [updated December 2017]. http://myworq.org/. Accessed 19 March 2019.
  21. 21.
    Finger ME, Wicki-Roten V, Leger B, Escorpizo R. Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) to French: a valid and reliable instrument to assess work functioning. J Occup Rehabil. 2018;29(2):350–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Snaith RP. The Hospital Anxiety And Depression Scale. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    World Health Organization (WHO). WHODAS-II - disability assessment schedule training manual: a guide to administration. Geneva: WHO; 2004.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O’Connell KA. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL group. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(2):299–310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sangha O, Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Katz JN. The Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire: a new method to assess comorbidity for clinical and health services research. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;49(2):156–163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Finger M, Schwegler U, Escorpizo R. Poster presentation: psychometric properties and factorial structure of the ICF based Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ)—French Version. Work Disability Prevention & Integration; Amsterdam 2016.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Finger ME, Escorpizo R, Tennant A. Measuring work-related functioning using the self-reported Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ): metric properties based on Rasch analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(15):E2795.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152795.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Solberg TK, Olsen JA, Ingebrigtsen T, Hofoss D, Nygaard OP. Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(10):1000–1007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kirchberger I, Cieza A, Biering-Sorensen F, Baumberger M, Charlifue S, Post MW, et al. ICF Core Sets for individuals with spinal cord injury in the early post-acute context. Spinal Cord. 2010;48(4):297–304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Haug TT, Neckelmann D. The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. An updated literature review. J Psychosom Res. 2002;52(2):69–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Üstün BT, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Rehm J, Kennedy C, Epping-Jordan J, et al. Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88:815–823.  https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.09.067231.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Posl M, Cieza A, Stucki G. Psychometric properties of the WHODAS II in rehabilitation patients. Quality of life research: an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation. 2007;16(9):1521–1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Andrews G, Kemp A, Sunderland M, Von Korff M, Ustun TB. Normative data for the 12 item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(12):e8343.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Conrad I, Matschinger H, Riedel-Heller S, von Gottberg C, Kilian R. The psychometric properties of the German version of the WHOQOL-OLD in the German population aged 60 and older. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:105.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0105-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Power M, Quinn K, Schmidt S. Development of the WHOQOL-old module. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(10):2197–2214.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Glassel A, Finger ME, Cieza A, Treitler C, Coenen M, Escorpizo R. Vocational rehabilitation from the client’s perspective using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a reference. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(2):167–178.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pösl M, Cieza A, Stucki G. Psychometric properties of WHODAS II in rehabilitation patients. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(9):1521–1531.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Renwick R, Nourhaghighi N, Manns PJ, Rudman DL. Quality of life for people with physical disabilities: a new instrument. Int J Rehabil Res. 2003;26(4):279–287.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE Publicaitons; 2009.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in Medicine: a Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24(3):69–71.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brown JD. Standard error vs. Standard error off measurement. JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter [Internet]. 1999;3(1):20–25. http://hosted.jalt.org/test/PDF/Brown4.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2017.
  46. 46.
    Tighe J, McManus IC, Dewhurst NG, Chis L, Mucklow J. The standard error of measurement is a more appropriate measure of quality for postgraduate medical assessments than is reliability: an analysis of MRCP(UK) examinations. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:40.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Donoghue D, Stokes EK. How much change is true change? The minimum detectable change of the Berg Balance Scale in elderly people. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(5):343–346.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Window, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; Released 2017.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated development environment for R. Boston: RStudio, Inc.; 2015. http://www.rstudio.com/. Accessed 30 Aug 2017.
  50. 50.
    Stekhoven DJ, Bühlmann P. MissForest—non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(1):112–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stenner R, Palmer S, Hammond R. What matters most to people in musculoskeletal physiotherapy consultations? A qualitative study. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2018;35:84–89.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2018.03.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Childs JD, Harman JS, Rodeghero JR, Horn M, George SZ. Implications of practice setting on clinical outcomes and efficiency of care in the delivery of physical therapy services. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(12):955–963.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hou WH, Tsauo JY, Lin CH, Liang HW, Du CL. Worker’s compensation and return-to-work following orthopaedic injury to extremities. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(6):440–445.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bartys S, Frederiksen P, Bendix T, Burton K. System influences on work disability due to low back pain: an international evidence synthesis. Health Policy. 2017;121(8):903–912.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–55.  https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lerner D, Amick BC III, Rogers WH, Malspeis S, Bungay K, Cynn D. The Work Limitations Questionnaire. Med Care. 2001;39(1):72–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Revicki D, Ganguli A, Kimel M, Roy S, Chen N, Safikhani S, et al. Reliability and Validity of the Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis. Value Health. 2015;18(8):1008–1015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    American Physical Therapy Association (APTA). Physical therapist examination and evaluation: Focus on tests and measures. Guide to Physical Therapist Practice 3.0. 2014.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Marfeo EE, Haley SM, Jette AM, Eisen SV, Ni P, Bogusz K, et al. Conceptual foundation for measures of physical function and behavioral health function for Social Security work disability evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(9):1645–1652 (e1642).CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Licher S, Heshmatollah A, van der Willik KD, Stricker BHC, Ruiter R, de Roos EW, et al. Lifetime risk and multimorbidity of non-communicable diseases and disease-free life expectancy in the general population: a population-based cohort study. PLoS Med. 2019;16(2):e1002741.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aline Husmann
    • 1
  • Reuben Escorpizo
    • 2
    Email author
  • Monika E. Finger
    • 3
  1. 1.Praxis LöwencentreLucerneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Rehabilitation and Movement ScienceThe University of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Participation, Integration and Social EpidemiologySwiss Paraplegic ResearchNottwilSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations