Background The revised Upper Extremity Work Demand (UEWD-R) Scale is a six-item self-report questionnaire to measure the workload of the upper limbs. UEWD-R consists of a force/posture scale and a repetition scale. Psychometric properties are unknown so far.
Purpose Assess the construct validity and the test–retest reliability of UEWD-R.
Method Participants from different levels of physical work demands (based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) categories) were included. Construct validity was determined by testing 11 predefined hypotheses regarding UEWD-R related to other constructs, including a workplace observation using the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). Correlations between these measures were calculated using Spearman correlation coefficients. Test–retest reliability was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for agreement. The smallest detectable change (SDC) was calculated.
Results Fifty-four participants participated (63% men, mean age 39.4 years). The four DOT categories were equally represented. Nine out of 11 predefined correlations were confirmed (82%), indicating good construct validity. Strong expected correlations of UEWD-R-total versus RULA-C (r=0.69) and UEWD-R-repetition versus RULA-muscle (r=0.12) were not confirmed. The test–retest reliability was good (ICC agreement=0.79). The SDC was 4.85.
Conclusion Construct validity and the test–retest reliability of UEWD-R were good. UEWD-R can be used to evaluate the workload of the upper extremities. However, further research is advised to assess the validity of the UEWD-R not only by testing associations with RULA,but also with other observational measures.
- upper extremity
- Psychometric properties
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors MAC executed the study and conducted the statistical analysis. MAC wrote the first draft of the manuscript with further contributions from CKvdS and RJB. All authors interpreted the data, reviewed and edited the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Patient details have been anonymised.
Ethics approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.