Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measurement properties of the Work Limitations Questionnaire were sufficient among cancer survivors

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine reproducibility, validity, and responsiveness of the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ) among cancer survivors.

Methods

A cohort of 53 cancer survivors completed the WLQ and other questionnaires at baseline, 4-week, and 6-month follow-up. We assessed internal consistency, intraclass correlation coefficient, standard error of measurement, floor- and ceiling effects and compared the WLQ with other constructs. For responsiveness, we assessed the following anchor-based measures: minimal important change (MIC) versus smallest detectable change (SDC) and area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operation characteristic (ROC).

Results

We found sufficient reproducibility at group level but not at individual level as the MIC (4.0) exceeded SDC at group level (3.1) but not at individual level (18.0). There was no indication of systematic bias or proportional bias. The internal consistency and construct validity for the WLQ and its subscales were sufficient or slightly less than sufficient. There was a floor effect for one subscale, but there were no ceiling effects. Responsiveness was sufficient with an AUC of a ROC of 0.65.

Conclusions

The WLQ is reproducible, valid, and responsive for use at group level among cancer survivors but not sufficiently reproducible for use at individual level.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. De Boer, A., Taskila, T., Ojajärvi, A., van Dijk, F., & Verbeek, J. (2009). Cancer survivors and unemployment—A meta-analysis and meta-regression. Journal of the American Medical Association, 301(7), 753–762.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Spelten, E. R., Sprangers, M. A. G., & Verbeek, J. H. A. M. (2002). Factors reported to influence the return to work of cancer survivors: A literature review. Psycho-oncology, 11(2), 124–131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hansen, J. A., Feuerstein, M., Calvio, L. C., & Olsen, C. H. (2008). Breast cancer survivors at work. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 50(7), 777–784.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kessler, R. C., Greenberg, P. E., Mickelson, K. D., Meneades, L. M., & Wang, P. S. (2001). The effects of chronic medical conditions on work loss and work cutback. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 43(3), 218–225.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Feuerstein, M., Hansen, J. A., Calvio, L. C., Johnson, L., & Ronquillo, J. G. (2007). Work productivity in brain tumor survivors. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 49(7), 803–811.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lavigne, J. E., Griggs, J. J., Tu, X. M., & Lerner, D. J. (2008). Hot flashes, fatigue, treatment exposures and work productivity in breast cancer survivors. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 2(4), 296–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Short, P. F., Vasey, J. J., & Belue, R. (2008). Work disability associated with cancer survivorship and other chronic conditions. Psychooncology, 17(1), 91–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Oostenbrink, J. B., Bouwmans, C. A. M., Koopmanschap, M. A. et al. (2004). Manual for cost studies, methods and standard cost-prices for economic evaluation in health care. [in Dutch: handleiding voor kostenonderzoek, methoden en standaard kostprijzen voor economische evaluaties]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Board of health care insurance.

  9. Lerner, D., Amick, B. C., Rogers, W. H., Malspeis, S., Bungay, K., et al. (2001). The Work Limitations Questionnaire. Medical Care, 39(1), 72–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Roy, J. S., Desmeules, F., & MacDermid, J. C. (2011). Psychometric properties of presenteeism scales for musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 43(1), 23–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Abma, F. I., van der Klink, J. J., Terwee, C. B., Amick Iii, B. C., & Bultmann, U. (2011). Evaluation of the measurement properties of self-reported health-related work-functioning instruments among workers with common mental disorders. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 38(1), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Beaton, D. E., Tang, K., Gignac, M. A., Lacaille, D., Badley, E. M., et al. (2010). Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of five at-work productivity measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Research (Hoboken), 62(1), 28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. de Vet, H. C., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., & Bouter, L. M. (2006). When to use agreement versus reliability measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(10), 1033–1039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Verhoef, J. A., Miedema, H. S., Bramsen, I., & Roebroeck, M. E. (2012). Using the work limitations questionnaire in patients with a chronic condition in the Netherlands. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 54(10), 1293–1299.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. de Boer, A. G., van Lanschot, J. J., Stalmeier, P. F., van Sandick, J. W., Hulscher, J. B., et al. (2004). Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life? Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 311–320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ilmarinen, J., & Tuomi, K. (1992). Work ability of aging workers. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 18(Suppl 2), 8–10.

    Google Scholar 

  17. de Zwart, B. C., Frings-Dresen, M. H., & van Duivenbooden, J. C. (2002). Test-retest reliability of the Work Ability Index questionnaire. Occupational Medicine, 52(4), 177–181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. de Haes, J. C., van Knippenberg, F. C., & Neijt, J. P. (1990). Measuring psychological and physical distress in cancer patients: Structure and application of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. British Journal of Cancer, 62(6), 1034–1038.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1(8476), 307–310.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mantha, S., Roizen, M. F., Fleisher, L. A., Thisted, R., & Foss, J. (2000). Comparing methods of clinical measurement: Reporting standards for bland and altman analysis. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 90(3), 593–602.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Coomarasamy, A., Khan, K. S., & Bossuyt, P. M. (2007). Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods. Health Technology Assessment, 11(50), iii, ix–51.

  23. Terwee, C. B., Roorda, L. D., Dekker, J., Bierma-Zeinstra, S. M., Peat, G., et al. (2010). Mind the MIC: Large variation among populations and methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(5), 524–534.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Liang, M. H. (2000). Longitudinal construct validity: Establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II84–II90.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Spelten, E. R., Verbeek, J. H., Uitterhoeve, A. L., Ansink, A. C., van der Lelie, J., et al. (2003). Cancer, fatigue and the return of patients to work-a prospective cohort study. European Journal of Cancer, 39(11), 1562–1567.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Schellingerhout, J. M., Heymans, M. W., Verhagen, A. P., de Vet, H. C., Koes, B. W., et al. (2011). Measurement properties of translated versions of neck-specific questionnaires: A systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 87.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2008). Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Roy, J. S., MacDermid, J. C., Amick, B. C, I. I. I., Shannon, H. S., McMurtry, R., et al. (2011). Validity and responsiveness of presenteeism scales in chronic work-related upper-extremity disorders. Physical Therapy, 91(2), 254–266.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Walker, N., Michaud, K., & Wolfe, F. (2005). Work limitations among working persons with rheumatoid arthritis: Results, reliability, and validity of the work limitations questionnaire in 836 patients. Journal of Rheumatology, 32(6), 1006–1012.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(2), 102–109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. de Haes, J. C., Olschewski, M., & Fayers, P. et al. (1996). Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients with the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist (RSCL), a manual. Groningen, The Netherlands: Northeren Centre for Healthcare Research.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the cancer survivors for their participation. We would also like to thank the Dutch cancer patient organisation (NFK), the Dutch breast cancer organisation (BVN), and the Dutch breast cancer organisation for young breast cancer survivors (stichting Amazones) for the possibility to post a notice on their website, and we would like to thank Prof. Dr. J.H.G. Klinkenbijl and T.W. Klinge for their help in recruiting cancer survivors. The study is granted by the Stichting Insituut Gak and is part of the research program ‘Pathways to work’ (www.verbeteronderzoek.nl).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Sietske J. Tamminga, Jos H. A. M. Verbeek, Monique H. W. Frings-Dresen & Angela G. E. M. De Boer

  2. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Kuopio, Finland

    Jos H. A. M. Verbeek

Authors
  1. Sietske J. Tamminga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jos H. A. M. Verbeek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Monique H. W. Frings-Dresen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Angela G. E. M. De Boer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sietske J. Tamminga.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tamminga, S.J., Verbeek, J.H.A.M., Frings-Dresen, M.H.W. et al. Measurement properties of the Work Limitations Questionnaire were sufficient among cancer survivors. Qual Life Res 23, 515–525 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0484-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0484-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation