Measuring Work Functioning: Validity of a Weighted Composite Work Functioning Approach
- 408 Downloads
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.
KeywordsWorkers Weights and measures Work capacity evaluation Efficiency Health
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.
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.
- 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.Freese C, Schalk R, Croon M. De Tilburgse Psychologisch Contract Vragenlijst [Tilburg Psychological Contract Questionnaire]. Gedrag Organ. 2008;21:278–93.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.Adler N, Stewart J. The MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status. 2007. http://www.macses.ucsf.edu. Accessed 28 April 2013.
- 20.Innes E, Straker L. Validity of work-related assessments. Work. 1999;12:125–39.Google Scholar