OBJECTIVE: To develop, evaluate, and improve the reliability and validity of the CDC Worksite Health ScoreCard (HSC). METHODS: We tested interrater reliability by piloting the HSC at 93 worksites, examining question response concurrence between two representatives from each worksite. We conducted cognitive interviews and site visits to evaluate face validity of items and refined the instrument for general distribution. RESULTS: The mean question concurrence rate was 77%. Respondents reported the tool to be useful, and on average 49% of all possible interventions were in place at the surveyed worksites. The interviews highlighted issues undermining reliability and validity, which were addressed in the final version of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The revised HSC is a reasonably valid and reliable tool for assessing worksite health promotion programs, policies, and environmental supports directed at preventing cardiovascular disease.
OBJECTIVE: To develop, evaluate, and improve the reliability and validity of the CDC Worksite Health ScoreCard (HSC). METHODS: We tested interrater reliability by piloting the HSC at 93 worksites, examining question response concurrence between two representatives from each worksite. We conducted cognitive interviews and site visits to evaluate face validity of items and refined the instrument for general distribution. RESULTS: The mean question concurrence rate was 77%. Respondents reported the tool to be useful, and on average 49% of all possible interventions were in place at the surveyed worksites. The interviews highlighted issues undermining reliability and validity, which were addressed in the final version of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The revised HSC is a reasonably valid and reliable tool for assessing worksite health promotion programs, policies, and environmental supports directed at preventing cardiovascular disease.
Authors: Sara L Tamers; Ron Goetzel; Kevin M Kelly; Sara Luckhaupt; Jeannie Nigam; Nicolaas P Pronk; Diane S Rohlman; Sherry Baron; Lisa M Brosseau; Tim Bushnell; Shelly Campo; Chia-Chia Chang; Adele Childress; L Casey Chosewood; Thomas Cunningham; Linda M Goldenhar; Terry T-K Huang; Heidi Hudson; Laura Linnan; Lee S Newman; Ryan Olson; Ronald J Ozminkowski; Laura Punnett; Anita Schill; Juliann Scholl; Glorian Sorensen Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Jason E Lang; Amanda Mummert; Enid Chung Roemer; Karen Butcher Kent; Dyann Matson Koffman; Ron Z Goetzel Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2020-03
Authors: Ron Z Goetzel; Enid Chung Roemer; Calliope Holingue; M Daniele Fallin; Katherine McCleary; William Eaton; Jacqueline Agnew; Francisca Azocar; David Ballard; John Bartlett; Michael Braga; Heidi Conway; K Andrew Crighton; Richard Frank; Kim Jinnett; Debra Keller-Greene; Sara Martin Rauch; Richard Safeer; Dick Saporito; Anita Schill; David Shern; Victor Strecher; Peter Wald; Philip Wang; C Richard Mattingly Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Stephen J Onufrak; Kathleen B Watson; Joel Kimmons; Liping Pan; Laura Kettel Khan; Seung Hee Lee-Kwan; Sohyun Park Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2016-09-04
Authors: Enid Chung Roemer; Karen B Kent; Amanda Mummert; Katherine McCleary; Jacquelyn B Palmer; Jason E Lang; Dyann M Matson Koffman; Ron Z Goetzel Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Alysha R Meyers; Ibraheem S Al-Tarawneh; P Timothy Bushnell; Steven J Wurzelbacher; Michael P Lampl; Chih-Yu Tseng; Dayona M Turner; Carol A Morrison Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Amy Meador; Jason E Lang; Whitney D Davis; Nkenge H Jones-Jack; Qaiser Mukhtar; Hua Lu; Sushama D Acharya; Meg E Molloy Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 2.830