Erratum to: J Occup Rehabil (2012) 22(1):51–58 DOI 10.1007/s10926-011-9320-6

In the above-mentioned article, the efficiency rates in Table 2 are wrong. The correct efficiency rates should be:

 

PHQ-15 ≥ 6

PHQ-15 ≥ 7

PHQ-15 ≥ 8

PHQ-15 ≥ 9

PHQ-15 ≥ 10

PHQ-15 ≥ 11

36.5 %

44.9 %

53.3 %

59.8 %

65.4 %

69.2 %

On p. 55, the efficiency rate in “Efficiency was 74.8 %, the highest value for all possible cut points” is incorrect. It should be replaced by: “Efficiency was 69.2 %, the highest value for all possible cut points.”

On p. 55, the efficiency rate in “At cut point 9, efficiency was 57.9 %” is incorrect. It should be replaced by: “At cut point 9, efficiency was 59.8 %.”

On p. 56, the efficiency rate in “Maximum specificity (78.6 %), and efficiency (74.8 %),….” is incorrect. It should be replaced by: “Maximum specificity (78.6 %), and efficiency (69.2 %), …”.