Advertisement

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 537–542 | Cite as

Measuring Work Functioning: Validity of a Weighted Composite Work Functioning Approach

  • Edwin J. Boezeman
  • Judith K. Sluiter
  • Karen NieuwenhuijsenEmail author
Article

Abstract

Purpose To examine the construct validity of a weighted composite work functioning measurement approach. Methods Workers (health-impaired/healthy) (n = 117) completed a composite measure survey that recorded four central work functioning aspects with existing scales: capacity to work, quality of work performance, quantity of work, and recovery from work. Previous derived weights reflecting the relative importance of these aspects of work functioning were used to calculate the composite weighted work functioning score of the workers. Work role functioning, productivity, and quality of life were used for validation. Correlations were calculated and norms applied to examine convergent and divergent construct validity. A t test was conducted and a norm applied to examine discriminative construct validity. Results Overall the weighted composite work functioning measure demonstrated construct validity. As predicted, the weighted composite score correlated (p < .001) strongly (r > .60) with work role functioning and productivity (convergent construct validity), and moderately (.30 < r < .60) with physical quality of life and less strongly than work role functioning and productivity with mental quality of life (divergent validity). Further, the weighted composite measure detected that health-impaired workers show with a large effect size (Cohen’s d > .80) significantly worse work functioning than healthy workers (discriminative validity). Conclusion The weighted composite work functioning measurement approach takes into account the relative importance of the different work functioning aspects and demonstrated good convergent, fair divergent, and good discriminative construct validity.

Keywords

Workers Weights and measures Work capacity evaluation Efficiency Health 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was made possible through a ‘Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development’ Grant awarded to the 3rd author (Grant Number 200400013).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The ethical committee of the hospital was informed about, and approved, the study (Number: W13_039#13.17.0053). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Lagerveld SE, Bültmann U, Franche RL, et al. Factors associated with work participation and work functioning in depressed workers: a review. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20:275–92.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abma FI, Van der Klink JJL, Terwee CB, et al. Evaluation of the measurement properties of self-reported health-related work functioning instruments among workers with common mental disorders. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2012;38:5–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lerner D, Amick BC III, Rogers WH, et al. The work limitations questionnaire. Med Care. 2001;39:72–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amick BC III, Habeck RV, Ossmann J, et al. Predictors of successful work role functioning after carpal tunnel release surgery. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46:490–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koopmanschap M, Meerding WJ, Evers S, et al. Handleiding voor het gebruik van PRODISQ versie 2.1 (PROductivity and DISease Questionnaire) [Manual for use of the PRODISQ version 2.1]. Rotterdam/Maastricht: Erasmus MC—Instituut voor Medical Technology Assessment, Instituut Maatschappelijke Gezondheidszorg, Universiteit van Maastricht—Beleid Economie en Organisatie van de Zorg; 2004.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freese C, Schalk R, Croon M. De Tilburgse Psychologisch Contract Vragenlijst [Tilburg Psychological Contract Questionnaire]. Gedrag Organ. 2008;21:278–93.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jansen NWH, Kant IJ, Van den Brandt PA. Need for recovery in the working population: description and associations with fatigue and psychological distress. Int J Behav Med. 2002;9:322–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ahlgren C, Malmgren Olsson EB, Brulin C. Gender analysis of musculoskeletal disorders and emotional exhaustion: interactive effects from physical and psychosocial work exposures and engagement in domestic work. Ergonomics. 2012;2:212–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Veldhoven M, Meijman TF. Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting met een vragenlijst: De vragenlijst beleving en beoordeling van de arbeid (VBBA) [The measurement of psychosocial job demands with a questionnaire (VBBA)]. Amsterdam: NIA; 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beaton DE, Tang K, Gignac MAM, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of five at-work productivity measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. Arthr Care Res. 2010;62:28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amick BC III, Lerner D, Rogers WH, et al. A review of health-related work outcome measures and their uses, and recommended measures. SPINE. 2000;25:3152–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ring-Kurtz S, Gibbons MBC, Kurtz JE, et al. Development and initial validation of multi-domain self-report measure of work functioning. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2008;196:761–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nieuwenhuijsen K, Franche RL, Van Dijk FJH. Work functioning measurement: tools for occupational mental health research. JOEM. 2010;52:778–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pieterse H. Richtsnoer voor good clinical practice (CPMP/ICH/135/95) 8th ed. [Guideline for good clinical practice (CPMP/ICH/135/95) 8th ed.]. Heerhugowaard: Profess® Medical Consultancy; 2011.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Adler N, Stewart J. The MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status. 2007. http://www.macses.ucsf.edu. Accessed 28 April 2013.
  16. 16.
    Adler NE, Epel ES, Castellazzo G, et al. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological en physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychol. 2000;19:586–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Terwee CB, Bot SDM, De Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, et al. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:651–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Verhoef JA, Miedema HS, Bramsen I, et al. Using the work limitations questionnaire in patients with a chronic condition in the Netherlands. J Occup Environ Med. 2012;54:1293–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Innes E, Straker L. Validity of work-related assessments. Work. 1999;12:125–39.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Abma FI, Van der Klink JJL, Bultmann U. The work role functioning questionnaire 2.0 (Dutch version): examination of its reliability, validity and responsiveness in the general working population. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23:135–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, et al. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 health survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1171–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tamminga SJ, Verbeek JHAM, Frings-Dresen MHW, et al. Measurement properties of the WLQ were sufficient among cancer survivors. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:515–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    De Croon EM, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW. Psychometric properties of the need for recovery after work scale: test–retest reliability and sensitivity to detect change. Occup Environ Med. 2006;63:202–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edwin J. Boezeman
    • 1
  • Judith K. Sluiter
    • 1
  • Karen Nieuwenhuijsen
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Academic Medical CenterUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations