I Z Schultz1, J Crook, J Berkowitz, R Milner, G R Meloche. 1. Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. ischultz@telus.net
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This paper reports on the predictive validity of a Psychosocial Risk for Occupational Disability Scale in the workers' compensation environment using a paper and pencil version of a previously validated multimethod instrument on a new, subacute sample of workers with low back pain. METHODS: A cohort longitudinal study design with a randomly selected cohort off work for 4-6 weeks was applied. The questionnaire was completed by 111 eligible workers at 4-6 weeks following injury. Return to work status data at three months was obtained from 100 workers. Sixty-four workers had returned to work (RTW) and 36 had not (NRTW). RESULTS: Stepwise backward elimination resulted in a model with these predictors: Expectations of Recovery, SF-36 Vitality, SF-36 Mental Health, and Waddell Symptoms. The correct classification of RTW/NRTW was 79%, with sensitivity (NRTW) of 61% and specificity (RTW) of 89%. The area under the ROC curve was 84%. CONCLUSIONS: New evidence for predictive validity for the Psychosocial Risk-for-Disability Instrument was provided. IMPLICATIONS: The instrument can be useful and practical for prediction of return to work outcomes in the subacute stage after low back injury in the workers' compensation context.
INTRODUCTION: This paper reports on the predictive validity of a Psychosocial Risk for Occupational Disability Scale in the workers' compensation environment using a paper and pencil version of a previously validated multimethod instrument on a new, subacute sample of workers with low back pain. METHODS: A cohort longitudinal study design with a randomly selected cohort off work for 4-6 weeks was applied. The questionnaire was completed by 111 eligible workers at 4-6 weeks following injury. Return to work status data at three months was obtained from 100 workers. Sixty-four workers had returned to work (RTW) and 36 had not (NRTW). RESULTS: Stepwise backward elimination resulted in a model with these predictors: Expectations of Recovery, SF-36 Vitality, SF-36 Mental Health, and Waddell Symptoms. The correct classification of RTW/NRTW was 79%, with sensitivity (NRTW) of 61% and specificity (RTW) of 89%. The area under the ROC curve was 84%. CONCLUSIONS: New evidence for predictive validity for the Psychosocial Risk-for-Disability Instrument was provided. IMPLICATIONS: The instrument can be useful and practical for prediction of return to work outcomes in the subacute stage after low back injury in the workers' compensation context.
Authors: Izabela Z Schultz; Joan M Crook; Jonathan Berkowitz; Gregory R Meloche; Ruth Milner; Oonagh A Zuberbier; Wendy Meloche Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-12-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: A C Harper; D A Harper; L J Lambert; N H de Klerk; H B Andrews; F M Ross; L J Straker; S K Lo Journal: Pain Date: 1995-01 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: C A M Heitz; R Hilfiker; L M Bachmann; H Joronen; T Lorenz; D Uebelhart; A Klipstein; Florian Brunner Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Radoslaw Wasiak; Amanda E Young; Richard T Roessler; Kathryn M McPherson; Mireille N M van Poppel; Johannes R Anema Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2007-10-11