PURPOSE: To examine the factorial validity of the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ-25) among workers' compensation claimants with chronic upper-limb disorders. METHODS: Attendees of the WSIB Shoulder and Elbow Specialty clinic in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, completed a survey that includes the WLQ-25 [4 subscales: time-management (TM), physical demands (PD), mental-interpersonal (MI), and output demands (OD)]. Confirmatory factor analyses (n = 2262) were conducted to evaluate and compare alternative 4- and 5-factor WLQ-25 structures [MI subscale intact vs. separated into mental demands (MD) and interpersonal demands (IP) subscales]. Model fit indices, saliency of factor loadings, and convergent/divergent validity of latent factors (r = 0.4 - 0.85 expected) were concurrently assessed. RESULTS: The 4-factor WLQ-25 showed acceptable model fit after allowing the residuals of a pair of PD items to correlate (CFI = 0.924, TLI = 0.915, RMSEA = 0.057, SRMR = 0.054); however, significantly lower-than-expected correlations between the PD factor and all other factors (r = -0.11 - -0.03) were also observed. Model fit for the 5-factor WLQ-25 was even more optimal (CFI = 0.934, TLI = 0.925, RMSEA = 0.053, SRMR = 0.051), with MD and IP factors correlating at r = 0.83. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of factorial validity was demonstrated by the WLQ-25; however, users should be attentive of an instrumentation issue that could be directly related to the psychometric performance of its PD subscale.
PURPOSE: To examine the factorial validity of the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ-25) among workers' compensation claimants with chronic upper-limb disorders. METHODS: Attendees of the WSIB Shoulder and Elbow Specialty clinic in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, completed a survey that includes the WLQ-25 [4 subscales: time-management (TM), physical demands (PD), mental-interpersonal (MI), and output demands (OD)]. Confirmatory factor analyses (n = 2262) were conducted to evaluate and compare alternative 4- and 5-factor WLQ-25 structures [MI subscale intact vs. separated into mental demands (MD) and interpersonal demands (IP) subscales]. Model fit indices, saliency of factor loadings, and convergent/divergent validity of latent factors (r = 0.4 - 0.85 expected) were concurrently assessed. RESULTS: The 4-factor WLQ-25 showed acceptable model fit after allowing the residuals of a pair of PD items to correlate (CFI = 0.924, TLI = 0.915, RMSEA = 0.057, SRMR = 0.054); however, significantly lower-than-expected correlations between the PD factor and all other factors (r = -0.11 - -0.03) were also observed. Model fit for the 5-factor WLQ-25 was even more optimal (CFI = 0.934, TLI = 0.925, RMSEA = 0.053, SRMR = 0.051), with MD and IP factors correlating at r = 0.83. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of factorial validity was demonstrated by the WLQ-25; however, users should be attentive of an instrumentation issue that could be directly related to the psychometric performance of its PD subscale.
Authors: Kristian Reich; Brad Schenkel; Ning Zhao; Philippe Szapary; Matthias Augustin; Marc Bourcier; Lyn Guenther; Richard G Langley Journal: J Dermatolog Treat Date: 2010-10-31 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: James J Collins; Catherine M Baase; Claire E Sharda; Ronald J Ozminkowski; Sean Nicholson; Gary M Billotti; Robin S Turpin; Michael Olson; Marc L Berger Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.162
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: Mark R Rosekind; Kevin B Gregory; Melissa M Mallis; Summer L Brandt; Brian Seal; Debra Lerner Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Kenneth Tang; Dorcas E Beaton; Annelies Boonen; Monique A M Gignac; Claire Bombardier Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Emily H Sparer; Leslie I Boden; Glorian Sorensen; Jack T Dennerlein; Anne Stoddard; Gregory R Wagner; Eve M Nagler; Dean M Hashimoto; Karen Hopcia; Erika L Sabbath Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: N K Rotondi; D E Beaton; M Ilieff; C Adhihetty; D Linton; E Bogoch; J Sale; S Hogg-Johnson; S Jaglal; R Jain; J Weldon Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Bethany T Gardner; Ann Marie Dale; Skye Buckner-Petty; Linda Van Dillen; Benjamin C Amick; Bradley Evanoff Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Femke I Abma; Ute Bültmann; Benjamin C Amick Iii; Iris Arends; Heleen F Dorland; Peter A Flach; Jac J L van der Klink; Hardy A van de Ven; Jakob Bue Bjørner Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2018-09