Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25729901›Full record

ArticleJournal of rehabilitation medicine2015

Interpreting physical and behavioral health scores from new work disability instruments.

Elizabeth E Marfeo, Pengsheng Ni, Leighton Chan, Elizabeth K Rasch, Christine M McDonough, Diane E Brandt, Kara Bogusz, Alan M Jette

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Interpreting Life Impact Burn Recovery Evaluation Profile Scores for Use by Clinicians, Burn Survivors, and Researchers.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2021
    Article
  4. Identifying Work Capacity and Promoting Work: A Strategy for Modernizing the SSDI Program.The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Validation of the Work-Disability Physical Functional Assessment Battery.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2018
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Elizabeth E MarfeoBoston University School of Public Health, Health and Disability Research Institute, 715 Albany Streeet, T5W Boston, MA 02118, USA. emarfeo@bu.edu.
Pengsheng Ni
Leighton Chan
Elizabeth K Rasch
Christine M McDonough
Diane E Brandt
Kara Bogusz
Alan M Jette

Funding

Outcomes Calculators for Informed Decision Making in Back SurgeryP60AR062799 · NIAMS · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI TOSTESON, TOR D · 2012 to 2016
$6.1M
Analyzing the SSA Disability Evaluation ProcessZIACL060065 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI CHAN, LEIGHTON · 2009 to 2025
$0k
CLC NIH HHS HHSN269200900004CCLC NIH HHS HHSN269200900004ICLC NIH HHS HHSN269201000011CCLC NIH HHS HHSN269201100009IIntramural NIH HHS ZIA CL060065NIAMS NIH HHS P60 AR062799
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop a system to guide interpretation of scores generated from 2 new instruments measuring work-related physical and behavioral health functioning (Work Disability - Physical Function (WD-PF) and WD - Behavioral Function (WD-BH)).

designCross-sectional, secondary data from 3 independent samples to develop and validate the functional levels for physical and behavioral health functioning. SUBJECTS: Physical group: 999 general adult subjects, 1,017 disability applicants and 497 work-disabled subjects. Behavioral health group: 1,000 general adult subjects, 1,015 disability applicants and 476 work-disabled subjects.

methodsThree-phase analytic approach including item mapping, a modified-Delphi technique, and known-groups validation analysis were used to develop and validate cut-points for functional levels within each of the WD-PF and WD-BH instrument's scales.

resultsFour and 5 functional levels were developed for each of the scales in the WD-PF and WD-BH instruments. Distribution of the comparative samples was in the expected direction: the general adult samples consistently demonstrated scores at higher functional levels compared with the claimant and work-disabled samples.

conclusionUsing an item-response theory-based methodology paired with a qualitative process appears to be a feasible and valid approach for translating the WD-BH and WD-PF scores into meaningful levels useful for interpreting a person's work-related physical and behavioral health functioning.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationSocial BehaviorAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePersons with DisabilitiesPsychometricsWorkWork Capacity EvaluationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25729901
PMCPMC4609577

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.