Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ-25) in Workers’ Compensation Claimants with Chronic Upper-Limb Disorders

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

Abstract

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.

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.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Covariance matrix of WLQ-25 available upon request from authors.

References

  1. Baldwin ML, Butler RJ. Upper extremity disorders in the workplace: costs and outcomes beyond the first return to work. J Occup Rehabil. 2006;16:303–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fabrizio AJ. Work-related upper extremity injuries: prevalence, cost and risk factors in military and civilian populations. Work. 2002;18:115–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Silverstein B, Welp E, Nelson N, Kalat J. Claims incidence of work-related disorders of the upper extremities: Washington state, 1987 through 1995. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1827–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Workplace Safety & Insurance Board. The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of Ontario Statistical Supplement to the 2009 Annual Report. http://www.wsib.on.ca/files/Content/staticfiles2009AnnualReport/2250A_wsibAR2009_ENG.pdf (2009). Accessed 25 November 2011.

  5. WorkSafeBC. Statistical Report: Occupational Disease in B.C. 1986–2010. http://www.worksafebc.com/publications/reports/statistics_reports/occupational_disease/pub_10_20_50.asp (2011). Accessed 12 June 2012.

  6. Pransky G, Benjamin K, Hill-Fotouhi C, Himmelstein J, Fletcher KE, Katz JN, et al. Outcomes in work-related upper extremity and low back injuries: results of a retrospective study. Am J Ind Med. 2000;37:400–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Schultz AB, Chen CY, Edington DW. The cost and impact of health conditions on presenteeism to employers: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:365–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Burton WN, Morrison A, Wertheimer AI. Pharmaceuticals and worker productivity loss: a critical review of the literature. J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45:610–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Goetzel RZ, Long SR, Ozminkowski RJ, Hawkins K, Wang S, Lynch W. Health, absence, disability, and presenteeism cost estimates of certain physical and mental health conditions affecting U.S. employers. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46:398–412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hemp P. Presenteeism: at work—but out of it. Harv Bus Rev. 2004;82:49–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lerner D, Amick BC III, Rogers WH, Malspeis S, Bungay K, Cynn D. The Work Limitations Questionnaire. Med Care. 2001;39:72–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Amick BC III, Lerner D, Rogers WH, Rooney T, Katz JN. A review of health-related work outcome measures and their uses, and recommended measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3152–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lerner D, Amick BC III, Lee JC, Rooney T, Rogers WH, Chang H, et al. Relationship of employee-reported work limitations to work productivity. Med Care. 2003;41:649–59.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rosekind MR, Gregory KB, Mallis MM, Brandt SL, Seal B, Lerner D. The cost of poor sleep: workplace productivity loss and associated costs. J Occup Environ Med. 2010;52:91–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang W, Gignac MA, Beaton D, Tang K, Anis AH. Productivity loss due to presenteeism among patients with arthritis: estimates from 4 instruments. J Rheumatol. 2010;37:1805–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lerner D, Rogers WH, Chang H. Scoring the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ) and the WLQ index for estimating work productivity loss. Technical report 2003.

  19. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Abma FI, van der Klink JJ, Terwee CB, Amick BC III, Bultmann U. Evaluation of the measurement properties of self-reported health-related work-functioning instruments among workers with common mental disorders. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2012;38:5–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tang K, Beaton DE, Boonen A, Gignac MAM, Bombardier C. Measures of work disability and productivity: rheumatoid arthritis specific Work Productivity Survey (WPS-RA), Workplace Activity Limitations Scale (WALS), Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA-WIS), Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63:S337–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Beaton DE, Tang K, Gignac MA, Lacaille D, Badley EM, Anis AH, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of five at-work productivity measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62:28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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 

  24. 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 

  25. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Amick BC III, Shannon HS, McMurtry R, Roth JH, et al. Validity and responsiveness of presenteeism scales in chronic work-related upper-extremity disorders. Phys Ther. 2011;91:254–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Erickson SR, Guthrie S, Vanetten-Lee M, Himle J, Hoffman J, Santos SF, et al. Severity of anxiety and work-related outcomes of patients with anxiety disorders. Depress Anxiety. 2009;26:1165–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Erman M, Guiraud A, Joish VN, Lerner D. Zolpidem extended-release 12.5 mg associated with improvements in work performance in a 6-month randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Sleep. 2008;31:1371–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pizzi LT, Talati A, Gemmen E, Dahl NV, Bunz TJ, Sand PK. Impact of transdermal oxybutynin on work productivity in patients with overactive bladder: results from the MATRIX study. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:329–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Reich K, Schenkel B, Zhao N, Szapary P, Augustin M, Bourcier M, et al. Ustekinumab decreases work limitations, improves work productivity, and reduces work days missed in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis: results from PHOENIX 2. J Dermatolog Treat. 2011;22:337–47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Lerner D, Adler D, Hermann RC, Chang H, Ludman EJ, Greenhill A, et al. Impact of a work-focused intervention on the productivity and symptoms of employees with depression. J Occup Environ Med. 2012;54:128–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Amick BC III, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Workplace Safety & Insurance Board. WSIB specialty clinics. http://www.wsib.on.ca/wsib/wsibsite.nsf/public/HealthSpecialtyPrograms (2010). Accessed 6 June 2012.

  35. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Roach KE, Budiman-Mak E, Songsiridej N, Lertratanakul Y. Development of a shoulder pain and disability index. Arthritis Care Res. 1991;4:143–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1038–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tang K, Beaton DE, Gignac MA, Bombardier C. Rasch analysis informed modifications to the work instability scale for rheumatoid arthritis for use in work-related upper limb disorders. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1242–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 1965;52:591–611.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mardia KV. Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika. 1980;57:519–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. London: The Guilford Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107:238–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hu L-T, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6:1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Iacobucci D. Structural equations modeling: fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. J Consumer Psychol. 2010;20:90–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Tucker LR, Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1973;38:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Widaman KF, Thompson JS. On specifying the null model for incremental fit indices in structural equation modeling. Psychol Methods. 2012;8:16–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res. 1992;21:230–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Tang K, Pitts S, Solway S, Beaton D. Comparison of the psychometric properties of four at-work disability measures in workers with shoulder or elbow disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19:142–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely thank the clinical, research, and administrative staff of the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board Shoulder and Elbow Specialty clinic at the Sunnybrook Holland Orthopaedic & Arthritic Centre in Toronto, Ontario, for helping to coordinate the collection of patient data for this research study. Funding support for this study was provided by a research grant from the Workplace Safety Insurance Board Research Advisory Council (WSIB-RAC #05028). Mr. Tang is recipient of a Canadian Institutes of Health Research PhD Fellowship, a Canadian Arthritis Network Graduate Award provided through a partnership with The Arthritis Society of Canada, and a Syme Fellowship from the Institute for Work & Health. Dr. Beaton was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research New Investigator award during the conduct of this study.

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Benjamin C. Amick III is a co-owner of the copyright on the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ-25). All authors declare no other financial or intellectual conflicts of interest in relation to this work. All authors also declare that our funding sources had no direct role in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Kenneth Tang, Dorcas E. Beaton & Sheilah Hogg-Johnson

  2. Mobility Program Clinical Research Unit, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Kenneth Tang & Dorcas E. Beaton

  3. Institute for Work and Health, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Kenneth Tang, Dorcas E. Beaton, Benjamin C. Amick III & Sheilah Hogg-Johnson

  4. Behavioral Sciences, Epidemiology and Occupational Safety and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA

    Benjamin C. Amick III

  5. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, Pierre Côté & Patrick Loisel

  6. Division of Health Care and Outcomes Research, Toronto Western Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Pierre Côté

  7. Division of Orthopaedics, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Patrick Loisel

Authors
  1. Kenneth Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dorcas E. Beaton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benjamin C. Amick III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sheilah Hogg-Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pierre Côté
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Patrick Loisel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth Tang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tang, K., Beaton, D.E., Amick, B.C. et al. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ-25) in Workers’ Compensation Claimants with Chronic Upper-Limb Disorders. J Occup Rehabil 23, 228–238 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9397-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9397-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation