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.
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.
Authors: A G E M de Boer; J J B van Lanschot; P F M Stalmeier; J W van Sandick; J B F Hulscher; J C J M de Haes; M A G Sprangers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.147
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: Caroline B Terwee; Leo D Roorda; Joost Dekker; Sita M Bierma-Zeinstra; George Peat; Kelvin P Jordan; Peter Croft; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-11-18 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Andy S K Cheng; Yingchun Zeng; Xiangyu Liu; Shaxin Liu; Stella W C Cheng; Cindy T T Kwok; Raymond C K Chung; Jianfei Xie; Michael Feuerstein Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: M H W Frings-Dresen; A G E M de Boer; A C G N M Zaman; K M A J Tytgat; J H G Klinkenbijl; F C den Boer; M A Brink; J C Brinkhuis; D J Bruinvels; L C M Dol; P van Duijvendijk; P H J Hemmer; B Lamme; O J L Loosveld; M M Mok; T Rejda; H Rutten; A Schoorlemmer; D J Sonneveld; L P S Stassen; R P Veenstra; A van de Ven; E R Velzing Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2021-06
Authors: AnneClaire G N M Zaman; Kristien M A J Tytgat; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Monique H W Frings-Dresen; Angela G E M de Boer Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Ahmad Ousmen; Célia Touraine; Nina Deliu; Francesco Cottone; Franck Bonnetain; Fabio Efficace; Anne Brédart; Caroline Mollevi; Amélie Anota Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Merel de Jong; Sietske J Tamminga; Angela G E M de Boer; Monique H W Frings-Dresen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Andy S K Cheng; Lauren O C Lau; Yvonne N H Ma; Rain H Ngai; Sanne S L Fong Journal: Hong Kong J Occup Ther Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 0.917