Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Development of the Return-to-Work Obstacles and Self-Efficacy Scale (ROSES) and Validation with Workers Suffering from a Common Mental Disorder or Musculoskeletal Disorder

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

An Erratum to this article was published on 12 July 2017

This article has been updated

Abstract

Introduction Common mental disorders (CMDs) and musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) lead the list of causes for work absence in several countries. Current research is starting to look at workers on sick leave as a single population, regardless of the nature of the disease or accident. The purpose of this study is to report the validation of the Return to Work Obstacles and Self-Efficacy Scale (ROSES) for people with MSDs and CMDs, based on the disability paradigm. Methods From a prospective design, the ROSES’ reliability and validity were investigated in a Canadian sample of workers on sick leave due to MSDs (n = 206) and CMDs (n = 157). Results Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed that 46 items spread out on 10 conceptual dimensions (e.g., Fears of a relapse, Job demands, Difficult relation with the immediate supervisor), with satisfactory alpha coefficients and test–retest reliability for all subscales. Finally, several dimensions of ROSES also predict the participant’s RTW within 6 months for MSDs (e.g., job demands), and CMDs (e.g., difficult relation with the immediate supervisor), even when adjusted by several variables (e.g., age, severity of symptoms). Apart from the job demands dimension, when the ROSES dimension is more external to the individual, only the perception of obstacles remains significant to predict RTW whereas it is the opposite result when the dimension is more internal (e.g., fears of a relapse). Conclusion The ROSES demonstrated satisfactory results regarding its validity and reliability with people having MSDs or CMDs, at the time of the return-to-work process.

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

Change history

  • 12 July 2017

    An erratum to this article has been published.

References

  1. Organisation Internationale du Travail (OIT). La prévention des maladies professionnelles: 2 millions de travailleurs tués chaque année (The prevention of occupational diseases: 2 million workers killed annually). Journée Mondiale de la Sécurité et de la Santé au Travail (World Day for Safety and Health at Work); 2013. http://www.ilo.org/safework/info/publications/WCMS_208226/lang--en/index.htm.

  2. Koopmans PC, Bültmann U, Roelen CA, Hoedeman R, van der Klink JJ, Groothoff JW. Recurrence of sickness absence due to common mental disorders. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2011;84(2):193–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dewa CS, Chau N, Dermer S. Examining the comparative incidence and costs of physical and mental health-related disabilities in an employed population. J Occup Environ Med. 2010;52(7):758–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Blank L, Peters J, Pickvance S, Wilford J, Macdonald E. A systematic review of the factors which predict return to work for people suffering episodes of poor mental health. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18(1):27–34. doi:10.1007/s10926-008-9121-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lagerveld S, Bültmann U, Franche R, Van Dijk F, Vlasveld M, Van der Feltz-Cornelis C, et al. Factors associated with work participation and work functioning in depressed workers: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(3):275–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Cornelius LR, van der Klink JJ, Groothoff JW, Brouwer S. Prognostic factors of long term disability due to mental disorders: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(2):259–74. doi:10.1007/s10926-010-9261-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Laisné F, Lecomte C, Corbière M. Biopsychosocial predictors of prognosis in musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature (corrected and republished). Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(22):1912–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kamper SJ, Apeldoorn A, Chiarotto A, Smeets R, Ostelo R, Guzman J, et al. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2015;350:h444.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Wagner S, White M, Schultz I, Murray E, Bradley SM, Hsu V, et al. Modifiable worker risk factors contributing to workplace absence: a stakeholder-centred best-evidence synthesis of systematic reviews. Work. 2014;49(4):541–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Loisel P, Anema J. Handbook of work disability: prevention and management. 1st ed. New York: Springer; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Dionne CE, Bourbonnais R, Frémont P, Rossignol M, Stock SR, Larocque I. A clinical return-to-work rule for patients with back pain. CMAJ. 2005;172(12):1559–67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Frank J, Sinclair S, Hogg-Johnson S, Shannon H, Bombardier C, Beaton D, et al. Preventing disability from work-related low-back pain. New evidence gives new hope—if we can just get all the players onside. CMAJ. 1998;158(12):1625–31.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Vlasveld MC, van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, Bültmann U, Beekman ATF, van Mechelen W, Hoedeman R, et al. Predicting return to work in workers with all-cause sickness absence greater than 4 weeks: a prospective cohort study. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(1):118–26. doi:10.1007/s10926-011-9326-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vooijs M, Leensen MC, Hoving JL, Daams JG, Wind H, Frings-Dresen MH. Disease-generic factors of work participation of workers with a chronic disease: a systematic review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2015;88(8):1015–29. doi:10.1007/s00420-015-1025-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Ebrahim S, Malachowski C, El Din MK, Mulla SM, Montoya L, Bance S, et al. Measures of patients’ expectations about recovery: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(1):240–55. doi:10.1007/s10926-014-9535-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nieuwenhuijsen K, Verbeek JH, de Boer AG, Blonk RW, van Dijk FJ. Predicting the duration of sickness absence for patients with common mental disorders in occupational health care. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006;32(1):67–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Løvvik C, Shaw W, Øverland S, Reme SE. Expectations and illness perceptions as predictors of benefit recipiency among workers with common mental disorders: secondary analysis from a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2014;4(3):e004321.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Gross DP, Battie MC. Work-related recovery expectations and the prognosis of chronic low back pain within a workers’ compensation setting. J Occup Environ Med. 2005;47(4):428–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shaw WS, Main CJ, Johnston V. Addressing occupational factors in the management of low back pain: implications for physical therapist practice. Phys Ther. 2011;91(5):777–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lagerveld SE, Blonk RW, Brenninkmeijer V, Schaufeli WB. Return to work among employees with mental health problems: development and validation of a self-efficacy questionnaire. Work Stress. 2010;24(4):359–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hackett G, Byars AM. Social cognitive theory and the career development of African American women. Career Dev Q. 1996;44(4):322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Durand M-J, Hong QN. Tools for assessing work disability. In: Loisel P, Anema J, editors. Handbook of work disability: prevention and management. 1st ed. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 229–54.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Marhold C, Linton SJ, Melin L. Identification of obstacles for chronic pain patients to return to work: evaluation of a questionnaire. J Occup Rehabil. 2002;12(2):65–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Velozo CA, Kielhofner G, Gern A, Lin F-L, Azhar F, Lai J-S, et al. Worker Role Interview: toward validation of a psychosocial work-related measure. J Occup Rehabil. 1999;9(3):153–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Brouwer S, Franche R-L, 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 

  26. Norrby E, Linddahl I. Reliability of the instrument DOA: dialogue about ability related to work. Work. 2006;26(2):131–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Durand M-J, Loisel P, Hong QN, Charpentier N. Helping clinicians in work disability prevention: the work disability diagnosis interview. J Occup Rehabil. 2002;12(3):191–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bandura A. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educ Psychol. 1993;28(2):117–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bandura A. Comments on the crusade against the causal efficacy of human thought. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 1995;26(3):179–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Corbière M, Mercier C, Lesage A. Perceptions of barriers to employment, coping efficacy, and career search efficacy in people with mental illness. J Career Assess. 2004;12(4):460–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gushue GV, Clarke CP, Pantzer KM, Scanlan KR. Self-efficacy, perceptions of barriers, vocational identity, and the career exploration behavior of Latino/a high school students. Career Dev Q. 2006;54(4):307–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Loisel P, Durand MJ, Berthelette D, Vezina N, Baril R, Gagnon D, et al. Disability prevention—new paradigm for the management of occupational back pain. Dis Manag Health Outcomes. 2001;9(7):351–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Corbière M, Durand M-J. Du trouble mental à l’incapacité au travail: une perspective transdisciplinaire qui vise à mieux saisir cette problématique et à offrir des pistes d’interventions (From mental disorders to work disability: a transdisciplinary approach to better understand this problematic and offer practical interventions). Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 2011. p. 409.

  35. Corbière M, Negrini A, Dewa CS. Mental health problems and mental disorders: linked determinants to work participation and work functionning. In: Loisel P, Anema JR, editors. Handbook of work disability: prevention and management. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 267–88.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Durand M-J, Corbière M, Briand C, Coutu M-F, St-Arnaud L, Charpentier N. Les facteurs reliés aux absences prolongées du travail en raison d’un trouble mental transitoire: développement d’un outil de mesure (The factors related to prolonged work absences due to a transitory mental disorder: development of a measurement tool). Montréal: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST) 2011. Report No.: R-674.

  37. St-Arnaud L, Corbière M. Déterminants de la réintégration en emploi et du retour au travail en santé mentale (Determinants of work reintegration and return to work in mental health). In: Corbière M, Durand M-J, editors. Du trouble mental à l’incapacité au travail: Une perspective transdisciplinaire qui vise à mieux saisir cette problématique et à offrir des pistes d’interventions (From mental disorders to work disability: a transdisciplinary approach to better understand this problematic and offer practical interventions). Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 2011. p. 137–66.

  38. Felx A, Kane M, Corbière M, Lesage A. La cartographie de concepts: une représentation visuelle et spatiale pour décrire les ressources résidentielles en santé mentale (Concept mapping: a spatial representation to describe home care services in mental health). In: Corbière M, Larivière N, editors. Méthodes qualitatives, quantitatives et mixtes: dans la recherche en sciences humaines, sociales et de la santé (Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods in the research of human, social and health sciences). Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 2014. p. 547–76.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kane M, Trochim WM. Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2007.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Corbière M. Les analyses factorielles exploratoires et confirmatoires: Illustration à l’aide de données recueillies sur l’estime de soi en tant que travailleur (Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses: an example using data from Self-Esteem as a Worker Scale). In: Corbière M, Larivière N, editors. Méthodes qualitatives, quantitatives et mixtes: dans la recherche en sciences humaines, sociales et de la santé (Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods in the research of human, social and health sciences). Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 2014. p. 517–46.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gorsuch RL. Factor analysis. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 4th ed. Needham Heights: Allyn et Bacon; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bentler PM. EQS structural equations program manual. Encino: Multivariate Software; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Byrne BM. A primer of LISREL: basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. 1st ed. New York: Springer; 1989.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Hofmann R. Establishing factor validity using variable reduction in confirmatory factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. 1995;55(4):572–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. LISREL 8: structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mueller RO. Basic principles of structural equation modeling: an introduction to LISREL and EQS. Springer texts in statistics. New York: Springer; 1996.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  48. Chou C-P, Bentler PM. Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In: Hoyle RH, editor. Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1995. p. 37–55.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Bollen KA. Structural equations with latent variables. London: Wiley; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Streiner DL, Normand GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. Vallerand RJ, Toward a methodology for the transcultural validation of psychological questionnaires: implications for research in the French language. Can Psychol 1989;30(4):662–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Andersen MF, Nielsen KM, Brinkmann S. Meta-synthesis of qualitative research on return to work among employees with common mental disorders. Educ Psychol Meas. 2012;38(2):93–104.

    Google Scholar 

  53. St-Arnaud L, Saint-Jean M, Damasse J. Towards an enhanced understanding of factors involved in the return-to-work process of employees absent due to mental health problems. Can J Community Ment Health. 2006;25(2):303–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Pelissier C, Fontana L, Chauvin F. Factors influencing return to work after illness in France. Occup Med (Lond). 2014;64(1):56–63. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqt142.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Corbière M, Zaniboni S, Coutu M-F, Franche R-L, Guzman J, Dawson K, et al. Evaluation of the fear-avoidance model with health care workers experiencing acute/subacute pain. Pain. 2011;152(11):2543–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Iles RA, Davidson M, Taylor NF. Psychosocial predictors of failure to return to work in non-chronic non-specific low back pain: a systematic review. J Occup Environ Med. 2008;65(8):507–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Øyeflaten I, Lie SA, Ihlebæk CM, Eriksen HR. Prognostic factors for return to work, sickness benefits, and transitions between these states: a 4-year follow-up after work-related rehabilitation. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24(2):199–212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Wertli MM, Rasmussen-Barr E, Held U, Weiser S, Bachmann LM, Brunner F. Fear-avoidance beliefs—a moderator of treatment efficacy in patients with low back pain: a systematic review. Spine J. 2014;14(11):2658–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 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  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Gray H, Adefolarin AT, Howe TE. A systematic review of instruments for the assessment of work-related psychosocial factors (Blue Flags) in individuals with non-specific low back pain. Man Ther. 2011;16(6):531–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Karasek R, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman I, Bongers P, Amick B. The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol. 1998;3(4):322–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Higgins C, Duxbury L, Lyons S. Reducing work-life conflict: what works? What doesn’t? Ottawa: Health Canada; 2008. Report No.: 5.

  63. Burley K. Work-family conflict and marital adjustment in dual career couples: a comparison of three time models. Claremont: Claremont Graduate School; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Zawieja P, Guarnieri F, Alaluf M, Albert É, Althaus V, Amoura C, et al. Dictionnaire des risques psychosociaux (Dictionary of psychosocial risks). Paris: Seuil; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  65. DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Busch H, Göransson 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  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Netterstrøm B, Eller NH, Borritz M, Bakke B. Prognostic factors of returning to work after sick leave due to work-related common mental disorders: a one-and three-year follow-up study. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:596572. doi:10.1155/2015/596572.

  68. Kristensen TS, Hannerz H, Hogh A, Borg V. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire—a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2005;31(6):438–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Vézina M, Brisson C, Vinet A, Trudel L. Workplace prevention and promotion strategies. Healthc Pap. 2004;5(2):32–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Brouwer S, Amick BC III, Lee H, Franche R-L, Hogg-Johnson S. The predictive validity of the return-to-work self-efficacy scale for return-to-work outcomes in claimants with musculoskeletal disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(4):1–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Boot CR, Hogg-Johnson S, Bültmann U, Amick BC III, van der Beek AJ. Differences in predictors for return to work following musculoskeletal injury between workers with and without somatic comorbidities. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2014;87(8):871–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Coutu M-F, Nastasia I, Durand M-J, Corbière M, Loisel P, Lemieux P, et al. Une approche systématique d’identification des déterminants de l’incapacité liés au travail et à la santé psychologique dans un secteur ciblé (Development of a systematic approach for identifying the determinants of occupational disability related to the work and psychological health of workers in a target sector). Montréal: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST); 2011. Contract No.: R-759.

  73. Corbière M, Fraccaroli F. La conception, la validation, la traduction et l’adaptation transculturelle d’outils de mesure: des exemples en santé mentale et travail (Conception, validation and cross-cultural adaptation of measuring tools: examples in mental health and work). In: Corbière M, Larivière N, editors. Méthodes qualitatives, quantitatives et mixtes: dans la recherche en sciences humaines, sociales et de la santé (Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods in the research of human, social and health sciences). Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 2014. p. 577–624.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Gili M, Vicens C, Roca M, Andersen P, McMillan D. Interventions for preventing relapse or recurrence of depression in primary health care settings: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2015;76(21):3.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge all directors, clinicians and individuals from the participating work rehabilitation clinics in Quebec for their precious contribution to this study.

Funding

This study was funded by the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST) (2010-0069).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education and Pedagogy, Career Counseling, Université du Québec à Montréal, Centre de recherche de l’Institut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Montréal (CR-IUSMM), 1205, Rue Saint-Denis, Montréal, QC, H2X 3R9, Canada

    Marc Corbière

  2. Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du travail (IRSST), 505 Boulevard de Maisonneuve Ouest, Montréal, QC, H3A 3C2, Canada

    Alessia Negrini

  3. Centre for Action in Work Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation (CAPRIT), School of Rehabilitation, Université de Sherbrooke, 150 Place Charles LeMoyne, Longueuil, QC, J4K 0A8, Canada

    Marie-José Durand

  4. Faculty of Education, Centre de Recherche et d’Intervention sur l’Éducation et la Vie au Travail (CRIEVAT), Université Laval, 2320 Rue des Bibliothèques, Québec, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada

    Louise St-Arnaud

  5. Faculty of Medicine, School of Rehabilitation, Université de Montréal, 7077, Avenue du Parc, Montréal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada

    Catherine Briand

  6. Unité Mixte de Recherche Epidémiologique et de Surveillance Transport Travail Environnement (UMRESTTE), Hospices Civils de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 18, Avenue Rockefeller, 69673, Lyon Cedex 08, France

    Jean-Baptiste Fassier

  7. Division of Occupational and Environmental Health, Dalla Lana Faculty of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Health Science Building, 6th floor, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada

    Patrick Loisel

  8. School of Rehabilitation, Université de Sherbrooke, CR-IUSMM, 150 Place Charles Le Moyne, Bureau 200, Longueuil, QC, J4K 0A8, Canada

    Jean-Philippe Lachance

Authors
  1. Marc Corbière
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessia Negrini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marie-José Durand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Louise St-Arnaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Catherine Briand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jean-Baptiste Fassier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Patrick Loisel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jean-Philippe Lachance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Corbière.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Marc Corbière, Alessia Negrini, Marie-José Durand, Louise St-Arnaud, Catherine Briand, Jean-Baptiste Fassier, Patrick Loisel, and Jean-Philippe Lachance declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke (human research ethics committee) and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Human and Animal Rights Statements

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9718-x.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Corbière, M., Negrini, A., Durand, MJ. et al. Development of the Return-to-Work Obstacles and Self-Efficacy Scale (ROSES) and Validation with Workers Suffering from a Common Mental Disorder or Musculoskeletal Disorder. J Occup Rehabil 27, 329–341 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-016-9661-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-016-9661-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation