Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the Psychometric Properties of Four At-Work Disability Measures in Workers with Shoulder or Elbow Disorders

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction To better capture the extent of work disability following an occupational injury, clinical researchers are beginning to recognize the importance of considering not only levels of absenteeism, but also disabilities experienced while “at-work”. Although at-work disability measures are available in the literature, currently there is little insight on the selection of specific measures that may be best suited for a given population or situation. The objective of this study is to assess and compare the measurement properties of four self-report at-work disability measures in workers with shoulder or elbow disorders. Methods Study sample consisted of 80 patients attending a shoulder and elbow specialty clinic operated by the Worker Safety Insurance Board of Ontario. Internal consistency reliability, validity, and patient preference of four at-work disability measures were compared in a cross-sectional design. Selected measures included the work module of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Outcome Measure, Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ-16), Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA-WIS), and Stanford Presenteeism Scale. Results All four measures demonstrated evidence of internal consistency reliability (alpha = 0.76–0.90) and construct validity, although only modest correlations against work-oriented constructs (r = 0.37–0.60) were observed. The RA-WIS was most preferred by respondents (44.6%) over the other measures. Conclusions Although no single scale stood out as clearly superior, the WLQ-16 was considered the best overall performer. Variable performance between the scales suggests some divergence in the way these measures conceptualize “at-work disability”, which may be important to consider when selecting instruments for future studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Escorpizo R, Bombardier C, Boonen A, Hazes JM, Lacaille D, Strand V, et al. Worker productivity outcome measures in arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2007;34:1372–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Loeppke R, Hymel PA, Lofland JH, Pizzi LT, Konicki DL, Anstadt GW, et al. Health-related workplace productivity measurement: general and migraine-specific recommendations from the ACOEM expert panel. J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45:349–59. doi:10.1097/01.jom.0000063619.37065.e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lofland JH, Pizzi L, Frick KD. A review of health-related workplace productivity loss instruments. PharmacoEconomics. 2004;22:165–84. doi:10.2165/00019053-200422030-00003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Collins JJ, Baase CM, Sharda CE, Ozminkowski RJ, Nicholson S, Billotti GM, et al. The assessment of chronic health conditions on work performance, absence, and total economic impact for employers. J Occup Environ Med. 2005;47:547–57. doi:10.1097/01.jom.0000166864.58664.29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Li X, Gignac MA, Anis AH. The indirect costs of arthritis resulting from unemployment, reduced performance, and occupational changes while at work. Med Care. 2006;44:304–10. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000204257.25875.04.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Koopman C, Pelletier KR, Murray JF, Sharda CE, Berger ML, Turpin RS, et al. Stanford presenteeism scale: health status and employee productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2002;44:14–20. doi:10.1097/00043764-200201000-00004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Prasad M, Wahlqvist P, Shikiar R, Shih YC. A review of self-report instruments measuring health-related work productivity: a patient-reported outcomes perspective. PharmacoEconomics. 2004;22:225–44. doi:10.2165/00019053-200422040-00002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lynch W, Riedel J. Measuring employee productivity: a guide to self-assessment tools. Scottsdale: Institute for Health & Productivity Management & William Mercer; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ozminkowski RJ, Goetzel RZ, Chang S, Long S. The application of two health and productivity instruments at a large employer. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46:635–48. doi:10.1097/01.jom.0000131797.52458.c8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lerner D, Amick BC 3rd, Rogers WH, Malspeis S, Bungay K, Cynn D. The work limitations questionnaire. Med Care. 2001;39:72–85. doi:10.1097/00005650-200101000-00009.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Beaton DE, Kennedy CA. Beyond return to work: testing a measure of at-work disability in workers with musculoskeletal pain. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1869–79. doi:10.1007/s11136-005-3865-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Amick BC 3rd, Habeck RV, Ossmann J, Fossel AH, Keller R, Katz JN. Predictors of successful work role functioning after carpal tunnel release surgery. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46:490–500. doi:10.1097/01.jom.0000126029.07223.a0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lerner D, Reed JI, Massarotti E, Wester LM, Burke TA. The work limitations questionnaire’s validity and reliability among patients with osteoarthritis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:197–208. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00424-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Endicott J, Nee J. Endicott work productivity scale (EWPS): a new measure to assess treatment effects. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1997;33:13–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gilworth G, Chamberlain MA, Harvey A, Woodhouse A, Smith J, Smyth MG, et al. Development of a work instability scale for rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;49:349–54. doi:10.1002/art.11114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gilworth G, Bhakta B, Eyres S, Carey A, Anne Chamberlain M, Tennant A. Keeping nurses working: development and psychometric testing of the nurse-work instability scale (Nurse-WIS). J Adv Nurs. 2007;57:543–51. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04142.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brouwer WB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Productivity losses without absence: measurement validation and empirical evidence. Health Policy (Amsterdam). 1999;48:13–27. doi:10.1016/S0168-8510(99)00028-7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lavigne JE, Phelps CE, Mushlin A, Lednar WM. Reductions in individual work productivity associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus. PharmacoEconomics. 2003;21:1123–34. doi:10.2165/00019053-200321150-00006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Meerding WJ, IJzelenberg W, Koopmanschap MA, Severens JL, Burdorf A. Health problems lead to considerable productivity loss at work among workers with high physical load jobs. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:517–23. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.016.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Turpin RS, Ozminkowski RJ, Sharda CE, Collins JJ, Berger ML, Billotti GM, et al. Reliability and validity of the Stanford presenteeism scale. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46:1123–33. doi:10.1097/01.jom.0000144999.35675.a0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sanderson K, Tilse E, Nicholson J, Oldenburg B, Graves N. Which presenteeism measures are more sensitive to depression and anxiety? J Affect Disord. 2007;101:65–74. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2006.10.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (WSIB). WSIB specialty clinics. http://www.wsib.on.ca/wsib/wsibsite.nsf/public/HealthSpecialtyPrograms (2002). Accessed 23 July 2008.

  23. Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C. Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther. 2001;14:128–46.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Institute for Work & Health. Scoring the DASH. http://www.dash.iwh.on.ca (1997). Accessed 5 July 2008.

  25. Walker N, Michaud K, Wolfe F. Work limitations among working persons with rheumatoid arthritis: results, reliability, and validity of the work limitations questionnaire in 836 patients. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:1006–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293–307. doi:10.1007/BF01593882.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Streiner D, Norman G. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nunnally J, Bernstein I. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Burton WN, Chen CY, Conti DJ, Pransky G, Edington DW. Caregiving for ill dependents and its association with employee health risks and productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46:1048–56. doi:10.1097/01.jom.0000141830.72507.32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lerner D, Adler DA, Chang H, Lapitsky L, Hood MY, Perissinotto C, et al. Unemployment, job retention, and productivity loss among employees with depression. Psychiatr Serv (Washington DC). 2004;55:1371–8. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.55.12.1371.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wolfe F, Michaud K, Choi HK, Williams R. Household income and earnings losses among 6,396 persons with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:1875–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mattke S, Balakrishnan A, Bergamo G, Newberry SJ. A review of methods to measure health-related productivity loss. Am J Manag Care. 2007;13:211–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by St. Michael’s Hospital. Dr. Dorcas Beaton is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) New Investigator’s Award. The authors would like to extend our utmost appreciation and thanks to Taucha Inrigt and Elaine Harniman for their hard work and dedication to this project. We would also like to thank Sonia Pagura and Jeff Hewer at the Shoulder and Elbow Specialty Clinic for their support and assistance throughout the course of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mobility Program Clinical Research Unit, St. Michael’s Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada

    Kenneth Tang & Dorcas Beaton

  2. Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Shanley Pitts & Dorcas Beaton

  3. Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Sherra Solway

Authors
  1. Kenneth Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shanley Pitts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sherra Solway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dorcas Beaton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dorcas Beaton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tang, K., Pitts, S., Solway, S. et al. Comparison of the Psychometric Properties of Four At-Work Disability Measures in Workers with Shoulder or Elbow Disorders. J Occup Rehabil 19, 142–154 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-009-9171-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-009-9171-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation