ArticleJournal of occupational health2016
Predictive value and construct validity of the work functioning screener-healthcare (WFS-H).
Article in Journal of occupational health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Accuracy and Measurement Properties of Instruments Screening for Psychological Distress in Healthcare Workers-A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- The association of subjective fit perceptions, distress, emotional exhaustion, and work engagement, with work functioning problems: A cross-sectional study conducted among young construction project management professionals.Journal of occupational health · 2020Article
- Reliability and Validity of the Work and Well-Being Inventory (WBI) for Employees.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo test the predictive value and convergent construct validity of a 6-item work functioning screener (WFS-H).
methodsHealthcare workers (249 nurses) completed a questionnaire containing the work functioning screener (WFS-H) and a work functioning instrument (NWFQ) measuring the following: cognitive aspects of task execution and general incidents, avoidance behavior, conflicts and irritation with colleagues, impaired contact with patients and their family, and level of energy and motivation. Productivity and mental health were also measured. Negative and positive predictive values, AUC values, and sensitivity and specificity were calculated to examine the predictive value of the screener. Correlation analysis was used to examine the construct validity.
resultsThe screener had good predictive value, since the results showed that a negative screener score is a strong indicator of work functioning not hindered by mental health problems (negative predictive values: 94%-98%; positive predictive values: 21%-36%; AUC:.64-.82; sensitivity: 42%-76%; and specificity 85%-87%). The screener has good construct validity due to moderate, but significant (p<.001), associations with productivity (r=.51), mental health (r=.48), and distress (r=.47).
conclusionsThe screener (WFS-H) had good predictive value and good construct validity. Its score offers occupational health professionals a helpful preliminary insight into the work functioning of healthcare workers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.