Femke I Abma1, Jac J L van der Klink, Ute Bültmann. 1. Department of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, FA10, Room 610, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands. f.i.abma@umcg.nl
Abstract
PURPOSE: The promotion of a sustainable, healthy and productive working life attracts more and more attention. Recently the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire (WRFQ) has been cross-culturally translated and adapted to Dutch. This questionnaire aims to measure the health-related work functioning of workers with health problems. The aim of this study is to evaluate the reliability, validity (including five new items) and responsiveness of the WRFQ 2.0 in the working population. METHODS: A longitudinal study was conducted among workers. The reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error), validity (structural validity-factor analysis, construct validity by means of hypotheses testing) and responsiveness of the WRFQ 2.0 were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of N = 553 workers completed the survey. The final WRFQ 2.0 has four subscales and showed very good internal consistency, moderate test-retest reliability, good construct validity and moderate responsiveness in the working population. The WRFQ was able to distinguish between groups with different levels of mental health, physical health, fatigue and need for recovery. A moderate correlation was found between WRFQ and related constructs respectively work ability and work productivity. A weak relationship was found with general self-rated health, work engagement and work involvement. CONCLUSION: The WRFQ 2.0 is a reliable and valid instrument to measure health-related work functioning in the working population. Further validation in larger samples is recommended, especially for test-retest reliability, responsiveness and the questionnaire's ability to predict the future course of health-related work functioning.
PURPOSE: The promotion of a sustainable, healthy and productive working life attracts more and more attention. Recently the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire (WRFQ) has been cross-culturally translated and adapted to Dutch. This questionnaire aims to measure the health-related work functioning of workers with health problems. The aim of this study is to evaluate the reliability, validity (including five new items) and responsiveness of the WRFQ 2.0 in the working population. METHODS: A longitudinal study was conducted among workers. The reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error), validity (structural validity-factor analysis, construct validity by means of hypotheses testing) and responsiveness of the WRFQ 2.0 were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of N = 553 workers completed the survey. The final WRFQ 2.0 has four subscales and showed very good internal consistency, moderate test-retest reliability, good construct validity and moderate responsiveness in the working population. The WRFQ was able to distinguish between groups with different levels of mental health, physical health, fatigue and need for recovery. A moderate correlation was found between WRFQ and related constructs respectively work ability and work productivity. A weak relationship was found with general self-rated health, work engagement and work involvement. CONCLUSION: The WRFQ 2.0 is a reliable and valid instrument to measure health-related work functioning in the working population. Further validation in larger samples is recommended, especially for test-retest reliability, responsiveness and the questionnaire's ability to predict the future course of health-related work functioning.
Authors: Marie-José Durand; Brigitte Vachon; Quan Nha Hong; Daniel Imbeau; Benjamin C Amick; Patrick Loisel Journal: Int J Rehabil Res Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 1.479
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Dorcas E Beaton; Kenneth Tang; Monique A M Gignac; Diane Lacaille; Elizabeth M Badley; Aslam H Anis; Claire Bombardier Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Benjamin C Amick; Rochelle V Habeck; Janet Ossmann; Anne H Fossel; Robert Keller; Jeffrey N Katz Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Jose M Ramada; Consol Serra; Benjamin C Amick; Femke I Abma; Juan R Castaño; Gemma Pidemunt; Ute Bültmann; George L Delclos Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2014-12
Authors: Kete M Klaver; Saskia F A Duijts; Chantal A V Geusgens; Maureen J B Aarts; Rudolf W H M Ponds; Allard J van der Beek; Sanne B Schagen Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Tim J Knobbe; Daan Kremer; Femke I Abma; Coby Annema; Stefan P Berger; Gerjan J Navis; Sijrike F van der Mei; Ute Bültmann; Annemieke Visser; Stephan J L Bakker Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2022-09-26 Impact factor: 10.614
Authors: T H Hylkema; M Stevens; J van Beveren; P C Rijk; R W Brouwer; S K Bulstra; P P F M Kuijer; S Brouwer Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2021-01-30
Authors: Linda Koopmans; Jennifer K Coffeng; Claire M Bernaards; Cécile R L Boot; Vincent H Hildebrandt; Henrica C W de Vet; Allard J van der Beek Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-05-27 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Karin van der Hiele; Dennis A M van Gorp; Marco A P Heerings; Irma van Lieshout; Peter J Jongen; Michiel F Reneman; Jac J L van der Klink; Frans Vosman; Huub A M Middelkoop; Leo H Visser Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 2.474