nach oben

Erschienen in:

16.11.2016

Psychometric Properties of the Obstacles to Return-to-Work Questionnaire in a Brazilian context

verfasst von: Daniela Milani, PhD, MSc, RN, Neusa Maria Costa Alexandre, PhD, MSc, RN, Juliana Alvares Duarte Bonini Campos, PhD, MSc, DDS, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, PhD, MMath

Erschienen in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation | Ausgabe 4/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Obstacles to Return-to-Work Questionnaire (ORTWQ) among Brazilian workers on sick-leave due to musculoskeletal disorders. Methods Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to evaluate the factor structure validity of the ORTWQ. Model fit indices and salience of factor loadings were assessed. The convergent validity was estimated using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR). The correlational analysis was verified using the Spearman Correlation between the ORTWQ and other specific tools. Discriminant Validity, internal consistency, stability (test–retest) and floor/ceiling effect were also assessed. Results A total of 301 participants completed the ORTWQ with a mean age of 45.0 (9.9) years. After refinement, the factor structure indexes of the oblique model were [χ²/df = 1.8; CFI = 0.9; TLI = 0.9; PGFI = 0.7; PCFI = 0.8; RMSEA = 0.05 (90% CI 0.05–0.06)]. Only Depression, Physical Workload and Perceived Prognosis subscales presented suitable AVE indices: 0.63, 0.51 and 0.52 respectively. The correlations between ORTWQ and the other questionnaires were appropriate for almost all subscales. Reliability evaluation showed adequate estimates for all subscales except for the Worry Due to Sick-Leave (CR = 0.45; α = 0.44; ICC = 0.69). A higher order hierarchical model is suggested, in order to estimate an overall score to ORTWQ in a Brazilian population. Conclusions The psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the ORTWQ were evaluated and after refinement, the validity, reliability and floor/ceiling effects indexes were suitable when applied to a sample of Brazilian workers on sick-leave due to musculoskeletal disorders. However, the factor structure presented some issues regarding convergent and discriminant validity.

Monteiro MS, Alexandre NM, Ilmarinen J, Rodrigues CM. Work ability and musculoskeletal disorders among workers from a public health institution. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2009;15(3):319–24.CrossRefPubMed

Punnett L, Wegman DH. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: the epidemiologic evidence and the debate. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2004;14(1):13–23.CrossRefPubMed

Loisel P, Buchbinder R, Hazard R, Keller R, Scheel I, van Tulder M, et al. Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: the challenge of implementing evidence. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):507–24.CrossRefPubMed

Coutu MF, Durand MJ, Loisel P, Dupuis G, Gervals S. Measurement properties of a new quality of life measure for patients with work disability associated with musculoskeletal pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(3):295–312.CrossRefPubMed

Marhold C, Linton SJ, Melin L. Identification of obstacles for chronic pain patients to return to work: evaluation of a questionnaire. J Occup Rehabil. 2002;12(2):65–75.CrossRefPubMed

Iles RA, Davidson M, Taylor NF. Psychosocial predictors of failure to return to work in non-chronic non-specific low back pain: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med. 2008;65(8):507–17.CrossRefPubMed

Gray H, Adefolarin AT, Howe TE. A systematic review of instruments for the assessment of work-related psychosocial factors (Blue Flags) in individuals with non-specific low back pain. Man Ther. 2011;16(6):531–43.CrossRefPubMed

Pransky G, Gatchel R, Linton SJ, Loisel P. Improving return to work research. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):453–7.CrossRefPubMed

Loisel P, Durand MJ, Berthelette D, Vézina N, Baril R, Gagnon D, et al. Disability prevention—new paradigm for the management of occupational back pain. Dis Manag Health Outcomes. 2001;9(7):351–60.CrossRef

10.

Linton SJ. Early identification and intervention in the prevention of musculoskeletal pain. Am J Ind Med. 2002;41(5):433–42.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Gatchel RJ. Musculoskeletal disorders: primary and secondary interventions. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2004;14(1):161–70.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Marois E, Durand MJ. Does participation in interdisciplinary work rehabilitation programme influence return to work obstacles and predictive factors? Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(12):994–1007.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Beaton D, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation of the DASH & Quick DASH outcome measures. Institute for Work & Health, Toronto 2007, pp 1–45. http://dash.iwh.on.ca/system/files/X-CulturalAdaptation-2007.pdf. Accessed 01 Feb 2015.

14.

Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurements scales. A pratical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University; 2015.

15.

Milani D, Hirayama MS, Souza AC, Alexandre NMC. Obstacles to return-to-work questionnaire: Cross-cultural adaptation to Brazilian context. Cien Saude Colet. 2016 (In press). http://cienciaesaudecoletiva.com.br/artigos/artigo_int.php?id_artigo=15791.

16.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, & Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: AERA; 2014.

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 checlist. Qual Life Res. 2011;21:651–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Anastasi A. Psychological testing. 6th ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company; 1988.

19.

Whoqol Group. The development of the World Health Organization quality of life assessment instrument (the WHOQOL). In: Orley J, Kuyken W, editors. Quality of life assessment:international perspectives. Heidelberg: Springer; 1994. p. 41–57.CrossRef

20.

Fleck MP, Leal OF, Louzada S, Xavier M, Chachamovich E, Vieira G, et al. Development of the Portuguese version of the OMS evaluation instrument of quality of life. Rev Bras Psiquiatr. 1999;21(1):19–28.CrossRef

21.

Hartrick CT, Kovan JP, Shapiro S. The numeric rating scale for clinical pain measurement: a ratio measure? Pain Pract. 2003;3(4):310–6.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Sousa FF, Silva JA. The metric of pain: theoretical and methodological issues. Rev Dor. 2005;6(1):469–513.

23.

Tait RC, Chibnall JT. Development of a brief version of the survey of pain attitudes. Pain. 1997;70(2–3):229–35.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Pimenta CAD, Kurita GP, da Silva EM, da Cruz DALM. Validity and reliability of the survey of pain attitudes (SOPA-28 items) in the Portuguese Language. Rev Esc Enferm Usp. 2009;43:1070–8.

25.

van Veldhoven M, Broersen S. Measurement quality and validity of the “Need for Recovery Scale”. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:3–9.CrossRef

26.

Moriguchi CS, Alem MER, van Veldhoven M, Coury HJCG. Cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of Brazilian Need for Recovery Scale. Rev Saude Publica. 2010;44(1):131–9.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main CJ. A fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low-back-pain and disability. Pain. 1993;52(2):157–68.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Abreu AM, Faria CD, Cardoso SM, Teixeira-Salmela LF. The Brazilian version of the fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire. Cad Saude Publica. 2008;24(3):615–23.CrossRefPubMed

29.

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(4):322–55.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Alves MGD, Chor D, Faerstein E, Lopes CS, Werneck GL. Short version of the “job stress scale”: a Portuguese-language adaptation. Rev Saude Publica. 2004;38(2):164–71.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Cooper CL, Williams J. A validation-study of the OSI on a blue-collar sample. Stress Med. 1991;7(2):109–12.CrossRef

32.

Swan JA, Demoraes LFR, Cooper CL. Developing the occupational stress indicator (OSI) for Use in Brazil—a report on the reliability and validity of the translated OSI. Stress Med. 1993;9(4):247–53.CrossRef

33.

de Barros EN, Alexandre NM. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Nordic musculoskeletal questionnaire. Int Nurs Rev. 2003;50(2):101–8.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Hair JF, Black WC, Babin B, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. New York: Prentice Hall; 2009.

35.

Kim KH. The relation among fit indices, power, and sample size in structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Model. 2005;12(3):368–90.CrossRef

36.

Guenther WC. Desk calculation of probabilities for distribution of sample correlation-coefficient. Am Stat. 1977;31(1):45–8.

37.

Terwee CB, Bot SDM, 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(1):34–42.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Maroco J. Analysis of Structural Equation: Theoretical Basis, Software & Applications. (Title in Portuguese: Análise de Equações Estruturais: Fundamentos teóricos, Software e Aplicações). 2nd ed. Pêro Pinheiro: Report Number; 2014.

39.

Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford; 2011.

40.

Schultz IZ, Stowell AW, Feuerstein M, Gatchel RJ. Models of return to work for musculoskeletal disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(2):327–52.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Wasiak R, Young AE, Roessler RT, McPherson KM, van Poppel MN, Anema JR. Measuring return to work. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(4):766–81.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T. Exploratory factor analysis: a five-step guide for novices. JEPHC. 2010;8(3):1–13.

43.

Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50.CrossRef

44.

Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc; 1988.

45.

Kuo H-H. Probability and stochastics series: white noise distribution theory—Book 5. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1996.

46.

Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods. 1999;4(3):272–99.CrossRef

47.

Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2007.

48.

Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2005;10:1–9.

49.

Campbell P, Bishop A, Dunn KM, Main CJ, Thomas E, Foster NE. Conceptual overlap of psychological constructs in low back pain. Pain. 2013;154(9):1783–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Martus P, Jakob O, Rose U, Seibt R, Freude G. A comparative analysis of the work ability index. Occup Med. 2010;60(7):517–24.CrossRef

Titel: Psychometric Properties of the Obstacles to Return-to-Work Questionnaire in a Brazilian context
verfasst von: Daniela Milani, PhD, MSc, RN
Neusa Maria Costa Alexandre, PhD, MSc, RN
Juliana Alvares Duarte Bonini Campos, PhD, MSc, DDS
Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, PhD, MMath
Publikationsdatum: 16.11.2016
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation / Ausgabe 4/2017
Print ISSN: 1053-0487
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-3688
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-016-9684-8

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Psychometric Properties of the Obstacles to Return-to-Work Questionnaire in a Brazilian context

Abstract

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

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

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2017

Socially Constructed Hierarchies of Impairments: The Case of Australian and Irish Workers’ Access to Compensation for Injuries

The First Six Years of Building and Implementing a Return-to-Work Service for Patients with Acquired Brain Injury. The Rapid-Return-to-Work-Cohort-Study

A Return-to-Work Prognostic Model for Orthopaedic Trauma Patients (WORRK) Updated for Use at 3, 12 and 24 Months

Reliability, Construct and Predictive Validity of the Hong Kong Chinese Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire

Work Characteristics and Return to Work in Long-Term Sick-Listed Employees with Depressive Symptoms

Three-Year Prospective Cohort Study of Factors Associated with Return to Work After Breast Cancer Diagnosis