Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 (Dutch Version): Examination of its Reliability, Validity and Responsiveness in the General Working Population

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

Abstract

Purpose: The promotion of a sustainable, healthy and productive working life attracts more and more attention. Recently the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire (WRFQ) has been cross-culturally translated and adapted to Dutch. This questionnaire aims to measure the health-related work functioning of workers with health problems. The aim of this study is to evaluate the reliability, validity (including five new items) and responsiveness of the WRFQ 2.0 in the working population. Methods: A longitudinal study was conducted among workers. The reliability (internal consistency, test–retest reliability, measurement error), validity (structural validity-factor analysis, construct validity by means of hypotheses testing) and responsiveness of the WRFQ 2.0 were evaluated. Results: A total of N = 553 workers completed the survey. The final WRFQ 2.0 has four subscales and showed very good internal consistency, moderate test–retest reliability, good construct validity and moderate responsiveness in the working population. The WRFQ was able to distinguish between groups with different levels of mental health, physical health, fatigue and need for recovery. A moderate correlation was found between WRFQ and related constructs respectively work ability and work productivity. A weak relationship was found with general self-rated health, work engagement and work involvement. Conclusion: The WRFQ 2.0 is a reliable and valid instrument to measure health-related work functioning in the working population. Further validation in larger samples is recommended, especially for test–retest reliability, responsiveness and the questionnaire’s ability to predict the future course of health-related work functioning.

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. Council of the European Union. Council conclusions on healthy and dignified ageing; 2980th employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs council meeting. 2009.

  2. 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. 2000;25:3152–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Amick BC III, Gimeno D. Measuring work outcomes with a focus on health-related work productivity loss. In: Wittink H, Carr D, editors. Pain management: evidence, outcomes, and quality of life: a sourcebook. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008. p. 329–43.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Abma FI, van der Klink JJ, Terwee CB, Amick BC III, Bültmann 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lofland JH, Pizzi L, Frick KD. A review of health-related workplace productivity loss instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22:165–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

  9. Tang K, Escorpizo R, Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Lacaille D, Zhang W, et al. Measuring the impact of arthritis on worker productivity: perspectives, methodologic issues, and contextual factors. J Rheumatol. 2011;38:1776–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 

  11. Williams RM, Schmuck G, Allwood S, Sanchez M, Shea R, Wark G. Psychometric evaluation of health-related work outcome measures for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17:504–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 

  13. Durand MJ, Vachon B, Hong QN, Imbeau D, Amick BC III, Loisel P. The cross-cultural adaptation of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire in Canadian French. Int J Rehabil Res. 2004;27:261–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gallasch CH, Alexandre NMC, Amick B. Cross-cultural Adaptation, Reliability, and Validity of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire to Brazilian Portuguese. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17:701–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Abma FI, Amick BC III, Brouwer S, van der Klink JJL, Bültmann U. The cross-cultural adaptation of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire to Dutch. Work (in press).

  16. Lindbeck A, Snower DJ. Multitask Learning and the reorganization of work: from tayloristic to holistic organization. J Labor Econ. 2000;18:353–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2011;21:651–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:539–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. VSNU. Gedragscode voor gebruik van persoonsgegevens in wetenschappelijk onderzoek (Code of Behavior for using Personal Data in Scientific Research). 2005. (Available at the website of the Association of Universities in the Netherlands: www.vsnu.nl).

  23. 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 

  24. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B. How to score version 2 of the SF-12 Health Survey. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated; 2002.

  26. Vercoulen JH, Swanink CM, Fennis JF, Galama JM, van der Meer JW, Bleijenberg G. Dimensional assessment of chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res. 1994;38:383–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Beurskens AJ, Bultmann U, Kant I, Vercoulen JH, Bleijenberg G, Swaen GM. Fatigue among working people: validity of a Questionnaire measure. Occup Environ Med. 2000;57:353–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. van Veldhoven M, Broersen S. Measurement quality and validity of the “need for recovery scale”. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60(Suppl 1):i3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. van Veldhoven M, Meijman T. Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting met een vragenlijst: De Vragenlijst Beleving en Beoordeling van de Arbeid (VBBA). [Questionnaire on Perception and Judgment of Work]. Amsterdam: NIA; 1994.

  30. Karasek RA. Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain - Implications for Job Redesign. Adm Sci Q. 1979;24:285–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Houtman I. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Karasek Job Content Questionnaire. Washington, DC: APA/NIOSH Conference on Work, Stress and Health; 1995.

  32. Karasek R, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman I, Bongers P, Amick B. The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol. 1998;3:322–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Karasek RA. Job Content Questionnaire and Users’s Guide. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering; 1985.

  34. Tuomi K, Ilmarinen J, Jahkola A, Katajarinne L, Tulkki A. Work Ability Index. In: Rautoja S, Pietiläinen R, editors. Finland: K-Print Oy Vantaa. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ahlstrom L, Grimby-Ekman A, Hagberg M, Dellve L. The work ability index and single-item question: associations with sick leave, symptoms, and health–a prospective study of women on long-term sick leave. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010;36:404–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a Short Questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educ Psychol Measur. 2006;66:701–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Bevlogenheid: Een begrip gemeten. Gedrag en Organisatie. 2004;17:89–112.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Test manual for the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. 2003. (Available at http://www.schaufeli.com).

  39. Warr P, Cook J, Wall T. Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. J Occup Psychol. 1979;52:129–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine. A practical guide. 1st ed. Cambridge: University Press; 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Koolhaas W, van der Klink JJ, Groothoff JW, Brouwer S. Towards a sustainable healthy working life: associations between chronological age, functional age and work outcomes. Eur J Public Health. 2011;22:424–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Statistics Netherlands. StatLine database, Available at: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb. Accessed June 2012.

  45. de Lange AH, Taris TW, Jansen PGW, Smulders P, Houtman ILD, Kompier MAJ. Age as a factor in the relation between work and mental health: results from the longitudinal TAS survey. In: Houdmont J, McIntyre S, editors. Occupational health psychology: European perspectives on research, Education and Practice Maia. Portugal: ISMAI Publications; 2006. p. 21–45.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors report no declaration of interest. This study was financially supported by a grant of SIG (Stichting Instituut Gak), The Netherlands.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, FA10, Room 610, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Femke I. Abma, Jac J. L. van der Klink & Ute Bültmann

Authors
  1. Femke I. Abma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jac J. L. van der Klink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ute Bültmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Femke I. Abma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abma, F.I., van der Klink, J.J.L. & Bültmann, U. The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 (Dutch Version): Examination of its Reliability, Validity and Responsiveness in the General Working Population. J Occup Rehabil 23, 135–147 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9379-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9379-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation