Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 401–408 | Cite as

The Psychometric Properties of an Iranian Translation of the Work Ability Index (WAI) questionnaire

  • M. Abdolalizadeh
  • A. A. Arastoo
  • R. Ghsemzadeh
  • A. Montazeri
  • K. Ahmadi
  • A. Azizi
Article

Abstract

Background This study was carried out to evaluate the psychometric properties of an Iranian translation of the Work Ability Index (WAI) questionnaire. Methods In this methodological study, nurses and healthcare workers aged 40 years and older who worked in educational hospitals in Ahvaz (236 workers) in 2010, completed the questionnaire and 60 of the workers filled out the WAI questionnaire for the second time to ensure test–retest reliability. Forward–backward method was applied to translate the questionnaire from English into Persian. The psychometric properties of the Iranian translation of the WAI were assessed using the fallowing tests: Internal consistency (to test reliability), test–retest analysis, exploratory factor analysis (construct validity), discriminate validity by comparing the mean WAI score in two groups of the employees that had different levels of sick leave, criterion validity by determining the correlation between the Persian version of short form health survey (SF-36) and WAI score. Results Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was estimated to be 0.79 and it was concluded that the internal consistency was high enough. The intraclass correlation coefficient was recognized to be 0.92. Factor analysis indicated three factors in the structure of the work ability including self-perceived work ability (24.5% of the variance), mental resources (22.23% of the variance), and presence of disease and health related limitation (18.55% of the variance). Statistical tests showed that this questionnaire was capable of discriminating two groups of employees who had different levels of sick leave. Criterion validity analysis showed that this instrument and all dimensions of the Iranian version of SF-36 were correlated significantly. Item correlation corrective for overlap showed the items tests had a good correlation except for one. Conclusion The finding of the study showed that the Iranian version of the WAI is a reliable and valid measure of work ability and can be used both in research and practical activities.

Keywords

An Iranian translation of the Work Ability Index questionnaire Psychometric properties Reliability Validity Work ability Iran 

References

  1. 1.
    Kumashiro M, Tom C, Goedhard M, Ilmarinen J. Aging and work. London and New York: Taylor & Francis; 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mehryar AH, Ahmad-Nia S. Age-structural transition in Iran: short and long-term consequences of drastic fertility swings during the final decades of twentieth century. Paris: CICRED seminar on “Age-Structural Transitions: Population Waves, Disordered Cohort Flows and the Demographic Bonus”, 2004.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ilmarinen J. The ageing workforce-challenges for occupational health. Occup Med. 2006;56(6):362–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martins PS, Novo ÁA, Portugal P. Increasing the legal retirement age: the impact on wages, hours, worker flows and firm performance. Bonn : Institute for the Study of Labor(IZA), 2009. IZA DP No. 4187.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kiani Sh, Bayanzadeh M, Tavallaee M, Robert S. The Iranian population is graying: are we ready? Arch Iran Med. 2010;13(4):333–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schulte P, Vainio H. Well-being at work-overview and perspective. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010;36(5):422–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salehi-Isfahani D. Human resources in Iran: potentials and challenges. Iran Stud. 2005;38(1):117–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nikopour H. Business cycles and policy making in social insurance systems the case of Iran (1962–2004), 2005. MPRA Paper No. 13060.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Zwart BCH, Frings-Dresen MHW, Van Duivenbooden JC. Test-retest reliability of the Work Ability Index questionnaire. Occup Med (Lond). 2002;52(4):177–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hasselhorn HM. Work ability–concept and assessment. London : Enterprise for Health Management Conference’ in London in Oct 2008-conference guide, 2008.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tengland P-A. The concept of work ability. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(2):275–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gould R, Ilmarinen J, Jarvisalo J, Koskinen S. Dimensions of work ability. Finish Inst Occup Health: Helsinki; 2008.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ilmarinen J. Work ability: a comprehensive concept for occupational health research and prevention. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2009;35(1):1–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eskelinen L, Kohvakka A, Merisalo T, Hurri H, Wägar G. Relationship between the self-assessment and clinical assessment of health status and work ability. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1991;17(Suppl. 1):40–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alavinia SM, De Boer A, van Duivenbooden JC, Frings-Dresen MHW, Burdorf A. Determinants of work ability and its predictive value for disability. Occup Med. 2009;59(1):32–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life. The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley J & Sons; 2007.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):231–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nunnally JC, Bernstein IR. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martinez MC, Latorre MRDO, Fischer FM. Validity and reliability of the Brazilian version of the Work Ability Index questionnaire. Revista de Saúde Publica. 2009;43(3):525–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM. 36-item health survey 1.0. Health Econ. 1993;2(3):217–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Patel AA, Donegan D, Albert T. The 36-item short form. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15(2):126.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sorensen LE, Pekkonen MM, Mannikko KH, Louhevaara VA, Smolander J, Alen MJ. Associations between work ability, health-related quality of life, physical activity and fitness among middle-aged men. Appl Ergon. 2008;39(6):786–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Montazeri A, Goshtasebi A, Vahdaninia M, Gandek B. The short form health survey (SF-36): translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(3):875–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Radkiewicz P, Widerszal-Bazyla M, The NEXT-Study Group. Psychometric properties of Work Ability Index in the light of comparative survey study. Int Congr Ser. 2005;1280:304–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martus P, Jakob O, Rose U, Seibt R, Freude G. A comparative analysis of the work ability index. Occup Med. 2010;60(7):517–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Abdolalizadeh
    • 1
  • A. A. Arastoo
    • 1
  • R. Ghsemzadeh
    • 1
  • A. Montazeri
    • 2
  • K. Ahmadi
    • 3
  • A. Azizi
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Rehabilitation Administration, School of Rehabilitation SciencesAhvaz Jundishapur University of Medical SciencesAhvazIran
  2. 2.Department of Mental HealthIranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECRTehranIran
  3. 3.Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of public HealthAhvaz Jundishapur University of Medical SciencesAhvazIran
  4. 4.Department of Medical Record, School of Para MedicineAhvaz Jundishapur University of Medical SciencesAhvazIran

Personalised recommendations