nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

01.03.2014

Measurement properties of the Work Limitations Questionnaire were sufficient among cancer survivors

verfasst von: Sietske J. Tamminga, Jos H. A. M. Verbeek, Monique H. W. Frings-Dresen, Angela G. E. M. De Boer

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 2/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

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.

De Boer, A., Taskila, T., Ojajärvi, A., van Dijk, F., & Verbeek, J. (2009). Cancer survivors and unemployment—A meta-analysis and meta-regression. Journal of the American Medical Association, 301(7), 753–762.PubMedCrossRef

Spelten, E. R., Sprangers, M. A. G., & Verbeek, J. H. A. M. (2002). Factors reported to influence the return to work of cancer survivors: A literature review. Psycho-oncology, 11(2), 124–131.PubMedCrossRef

Hansen, J. A., Feuerstein, M., Calvio, L. C., & Olsen, C. H. (2008). Breast cancer survivors at work. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 50(7), 777–784.PubMedCrossRef

Kessler, R. C., Greenberg, P. E., Mickelson, K. D., Meneades, L. M., & Wang, P. S. (2001). The effects of chronic medical conditions on work loss and work cutback. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 43(3), 218–225.PubMedCrossRef

Feuerstein, M., Hansen, J. A., Calvio, L. C., Johnson, L., & Ronquillo, J. G. (2007). Work productivity in brain tumor survivors. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 49(7), 803–811.PubMedCrossRef

Lavigne, J. E., Griggs, J. J., Tu, X. M., & Lerner, D. J. (2008). Hot flashes, fatigue, treatment exposures and work productivity in breast cancer survivors. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 2(4), 296–302.PubMedCrossRef

Short, P. F., Vasey, J. J., & Belue, R. (2008). Work disability associated with cancer survivorship and other chronic conditions. Psychooncology, 17(1), 91–97.PubMedCrossRef

Oostenbrink, J. B., Bouwmans, C. A. M., Koopmanschap, M. A. et al. (2004). Manual for cost studies, methods and standard cost-prices for economic evaluation in health care. [in Dutch: handleiding voor kostenonderzoek, methoden en standaard kostprijzen voor economische evaluaties]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Board of health care insurance.

Lerner, D., Amick, B. C., Rogers, W. H., Malspeis, S., Bungay, K., et al. (2001). The Work Limitations Questionnaire. Medical Care, 39(1), 72–85.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Roy, J. S., Desmeules, F., & MacDermid, J. C. (2011). Psychometric properties of presenteeism scales for musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 43(1), 23–31.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Abma, F. I., van der Klink, J. J., Terwee, C. B., Amick Iii, B. C., & Bultmann, U. (2011). Evaluation of the measurement properties of self-reported health-related work-functioning instruments among workers with common mental disorders. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 38(1), 5–18.

12.

Beaton, D. E., Tang, K., Gignac, M. A., Lacaille, D., Badley, E. M., et al. (2010). Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of five at-work productivity measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Research (Hoboken), 62(1), 28–37.CrossRef

13.

de Vet, H. C., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., & Bouter, L. M. (2006). When to use agreement versus reliability measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(10), 1033–1039.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Verhoef, J. A., Miedema, H. S., Bramsen, I., & Roebroeck, M. E. (2012). Using the work limitations questionnaire in patients with a chronic condition in the Netherlands. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 54(10), 1293–1299.PubMedCrossRef

15.

de Boer, A. G., van Lanschot, J. J., Stalmeier, P. F., van Sandick, J. W., Hulscher, J. B., et al. (2004). Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life? Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 311–320.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Ilmarinen, J., & Tuomi, K. (1992). Work ability of aging workers. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 18(Suppl 2), 8–10.

17.

de Zwart, B. C., Frings-Dresen, M. H., & van Duivenbooden, J. C. (2002). Test-retest reliability of the Work Ability Index questionnaire. Occupational Medicine, 52(4), 177–181.PubMedCrossRef

18.

de Haes, J. C., van Knippenberg, F. C., & Neijt, J. P. (1990). Measuring psychological and physical distress in cancer patients: Structure and application of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. British Journal of Cancer, 62(6), 1034–1038.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

19.

Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1(8476), 307–310.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Mantha, S., Roizen, M. F., Fleisher, L. A., Thisted, R., & Foss, J. (2000). Comparing methods of clinical measurement: Reporting standards for bland and altman analysis. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 90(3), 593–602.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Coomarasamy, A., Khan, K. S., & Bossuyt, P. M. (2007). Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods. Health Technology Assessment, 11(50), iii, ix–51.

23.

Terwee, C. B., Roorda, L. D., Dekker, J., Bierma-Zeinstra, S. M., Peat, G., et al. (2010). Mind the MIC: Large variation among populations and methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(5), 524–534.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Liang, M. H. (2000). Longitudinal construct validity: Establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II84–II90.

25.

Spelten, E. R., Verbeek, J. H., Uitterhoeve, A. L., Ansink, A. C., van der Lelie, J., et al. (2003). Cancer, fatigue and the return of patients to work-a prospective cohort study. European Journal of Cancer, 39(11), 1562–1567.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Schellingerhout, J. M., Heymans, M. W., Verhagen, A. P., de Vet, H. C., Koes, B. W., et al. (2011). Measurement properties of translated versions of neck-specific questionnaires: A systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 87.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

27.

Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2008). Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

28.

Roy, J. S., MacDermid, J. C., Amick, B. C, I. I. I., Shannon, H. S., McMurtry, R., et al. (2011). Validity and responsiveness of presenteeism scales in chronic work-related upper-extremity disorders. Physical Therapy, 91(2), 254–266.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Walker, N., Michaud, K., & Wolfe, F. (2005). Work limitations among working persons with rheumatoid arthritis: Results, reliability, and validity of the work limitations questionnaire in 836 patients. Journal of Rheumatology, 32(6), 1006–1012.PubMed

30.

Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(2), 102–109.PubMedCrossRef

31.

de Haes, J. C., Olschewski, M., & Fayers, P. et al. (1996). Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients with the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist (RSCL), a manual. Groningen, The Netherlands: Northeren Centre for Healthcare Research.

Titel: Measurement properties of the Work Limitations Questionnaire were sufficient among cancer survivors
verfasst von: Sietske J. Tamminga
Jos H. A. M. Verbeek
Monique H. W. Frings-Dresen
Angela G. E. M. De Boer
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2014
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0484-8

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2014

Associations of cancer and other chronic medical conditions with SF-6D preference-based scores in Medicare beneficiaries

The valuation of the EQ-5D in Portugal

The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D-5L: psychometric properties and normative values for the general German population

Mokken scaling of the Chinese version of the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey

Is Rasch model analysis applicable in small sample size pilot studies for assessing item characteristics? An example using PROMIS pain behavior item bank data

EQ-5D Portuguese population norms