Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Psychometric Properties of the Readiness for Return to Work Scale in Inpatient Occupational Rehabilitation in Norway

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim To investigate internal consistency and construct validity of the Readiness for return to work (RTW) scale in a sample participating in a Norwegian inpatient occupational rehabilitation program. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted on baseline measures from a prospective cohort study evaluating a 5 days inpatient occupational rehabilitation program. The participants in the program were 18–67 years, on sickness absence or at risk of sickness absence (N = 193). The Readiness for RTW scale, sociodemographic-, work- and health-related questionnaires were answered by the participants on their first day in the program. Statistical analysis included exploratory factor analyses, reliability analyses and correlations with related instruments. Results In the scale for those not working (N = 124) two factors were found, representing (1) RTW inability and (2) RTW uncertainty. These factors corresponded to the precontemplation and contemplation stages in a previous Canadian study. The original prepared for action stages were not identified in this sample. In the scale for those working shortly before the program (N = 60) two factors were identified, representing (1) Uncertain work maintenance and (2) Proactive work maintenance, comparable to the stages in the Canadian study. The factors had satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha >0.7), except for proactive work maintenance (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.59). Expected relationships were found between the readiness for RTW stages and the pain stages of change, fear avoidance beliefs for work, subjective health complaints, decision control and coping at work. Conclusion Internal consistency and construct validity of the readiness for RTW stages found were satisfactory, except for proactive work maintenance. The results indicate that the construct of readiness for RTW may vary by culture and patient setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Young AE, Roessler RT, Wasiak R, McPherson KM, van Poppel MN, Anema JR. A developmental conceptualization of return to work. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):557–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Franche RL, Krause N. Readiness for return to work following injury or illness: conceptualizing the interpersonal impact of health care, workplace, and insurance factors. J Occup Rehabil. 2002;12(4):233–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Iles RA, Davidson M, Taylor NF, O’Halloran P. Systematic review of the ability of recovery expectations to predict outcomes in non-chronic non-specific low back pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(1):25–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schultz IZ, Crook J, Meloche GR, Berkowitz J, Milner R, Zuberbier OA, et al. Psychosocial factors predictive of occupational low back disability: towards development of a return-to-work model. Pain. 2004;107(1–2):77–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Reiso H, Nygard JF, Brage S, Gulbrandsen P, Tellnes G. Work ability and duration of certified sickness absence. Scand J Public Health. 2001;29(3):218–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Franche RL, Corbiere M, Lee H, Breslin FC, Hepburn CG. The readiness for return-to-work (RRTW) scale: development and validation of a self-report staging scale in lost-time claimants with musculoskeletal disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(3):450–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC. In search of how people change. Applications to addictive behaviors. Am Psychol. 1992;47(9):1102–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Keefe FJ, Lefebvre JC, Kerns RD, Rosenberg R, Beaupre P, Prochaska J, et al. Understanding the adoption of arthritis self-management: stages of change profiles among arthritis patients. Pain. 2000;87(3):303–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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):704–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fritz JM, George SZ. Identifying psychosocial variables in patients with acute work-related low back pain: the importance of fear-avoidance beliefs. Phys Ther. 2002;82(10):973–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grotle M, Vollestad NK, Veierod MB, Brox JI. Fear-avoidance beliefs and distress in relation to disability in acute and chronic low back pain. Pain. 2004;112(3):343–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Øyeflaten I, Hysing M, Eriksen HR. Prognostic factors associated with return to work following multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40:548–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Roelen CA, Koopmans PC, Groothoff JW. Subjective health complaints in relation to sickness absence. Work. 2010;37(1):15–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dallner M, Elo A-L, Gamberale F, Hottinen V, Knardahl S, Linstrom K, et al. Validation of the general Nordic questionnaire (QPS Nordic) for psychological and social factors at work. Copenhagen: Nordic Counsil of Ministers; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Krause N, Dasinger LK, Deegan LJ, Rudolph L, Brand RJ. Psychosocial job factors and return-to-work after compensated low back injury: a disability phase-specific analysis. Am J Ind Med. 2001;40(4):374–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Nieuwenhuijsen K, Verbeek JH, de Boer AG, Blonk RW, van Dijk FJ. Supervisory behaviour as a predictor of return to work in employees absent from work due to mental health problems. Occup Environ Med. 2004;61(10):817–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Janssen N, van den Heuvel WP, Beurskens AJ, Nijhuis FJ, Schroer CA, van Eijk JT. The demand-control-support model as a predictor of return to work. Int J Rehabil Res. 2003;26(1):1–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Campbell P, Wynne-Jones G, Muller S, Dunn KM. The influence of employment social support for risk and prognosis in nonspecific back pain: a systematic review and critical synthesis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2012:1–19. doi:10.1007/s00420-012-0804-2.

  20. Busch H, Goransson S, Melin B. Self-efficacy beliefs predict sustained long-term sick absenteeism in individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain Pract. 2007;7(3):234–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kerns RD, Rosenberg R, Jamison RN, Caudill MA, Haythornthwaite J. Readiness to adopt a self-management approach to chronic pain: the Pain Stages of Change Questionnaire (PSOCQ). Pain. 1997;72(1–2):227–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main CJ. A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain. 1993;52(2):157–68.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Eriksen HR, Ihlebaek C, Ursin H. A scoring system for subjective health complaints (SHC). Scand J Public Health. 1999;27(1):63–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multvariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2005;10(7):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Statistics Norway. Educational level in the Norwegian population. 2012. Available from: http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/04/01/utniv_en/.

  29. Stewart AM, Polak E, Young R, Schultz IZ. Injured workers’ construction of expectations of return to work with sub-acute back pain: the role of perceived uncertainty. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(1):1–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Brouwer S, Franche RL, Hogg-Johnson S, Lee H, Krause N, Shaw WS. Return-to-work self-efficacy: development and validation of a scale in claimants with musculoskeletal disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(2):244–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chan H, Li-Tsang CW, Chan C, Lam CS, Hui KL, Bard C. Validation of Lam assessment of employment readiness (C-LASER) for Chinese injured workers. J Occup Rehabil. 2006;16(4):697–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Carr JL, Moffett JA, Sharp DM, Haines DR. Is the Pain Stages of Change Questionnaire (PSOCQ) a useful tool for predicting participation in a self-management programme? Further evidence of validity, on a sample of UK pain clinic patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Karasek R, Theorell T. Healthy work: stress, productivity and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Centre for Occupational Rehabilitation in Norway—AiR. We would like to thank the participants in the study and Magne Thoresen at the University of Oslo for statistical advice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Community Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, The University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Tore N. Braathen, Søren Brage & Gunnar Tellnes

  2. Directorate for Labour and Welfare, Oslo, Norway

    Søren Brage

  3. National Centre for Occupational Rehabilitation in Norway, AiR, Rauland, Norway

    Tore N. Braathen & Monica Eftedal

Authors
  1. Tore N. Braathen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Søren Brage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gunnar Tellnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Monica Eftedal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tore N. Braathen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Braathen, T.N., Brage, S., Tellnes, G. et al. Psychometric Properties of the Readiness for Return to Work Scale in Inpatient Occupational Rehabilitation in Norway. J Occup Rehabil 23, 371–380 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9414-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9414-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation