ArticleArchives of physical medicine and rehabilitation2019
Psychometric Evaluation of the Improved Work-Disability Functional Assessment Battery.
Article in Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applying NLP methods to code functional performance in electronic health records using the international classification of functioning, disability, and health.Disability and health journal · 2025Article
- Aligning metrics with meaning: considerations for measurement selection in disability evaluation.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025Article
- Demographic and functional differences among social security disability claimants.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021Article
- exploring counselor-client agreement on clients' work capacity in established and consultative dyads.Journal of employment counseling · 2020Article
- The reproducibility of psychiatric evaluations of work disability: two reliability and agreement studies.BMC psychiatry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess psychometric properties of the improved Work Disability Functional Assessment Battery (WD-FAB 2.0).
designLongitudinal study.
settingCommunity.
participantsThree samples of working-age (21-66) adults (N=1006): (1) unable to work because of a physical condition (n=375); (2) unable to work because of a mental health condition (n=296); (3) general United States working age sample (n=335).
interventionNA.
main outcome measuresAll samples completed the WD-FAB 2.0; the second administration came 5 days after the first. Construct validity was examined by convergent and divergent correlational analysis using legacy measures. Test-retest reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC
resultsPhysical function ICCs ranged from 0.69 to 0.77 in the general sample, and 0.66 to 0.86 in the disability sample. Mental health function scales ICCs ranged from 0.62 to 0.73 in the general sample, and 0.74 to 0.76 in the disability sample. SEMs for all scales indicated good discrimination; those for the physical function scales were generally lower than those for the mental health scales. MDC
conclusionsThe study provides substantial support for the reliability and construct validity of the WD-FAB 2.0 among 3 diverse samples. Although initially developed for use within the Social Security Administration (SSA), these results suggest that the WD-FAB 2.0 could be used for assessment and measurement of work-related physical and mental health function in other contexts as well.
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.