ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2021
Measurement Properties of the Full and Brief Version of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire in Persons with Physical Disabilities.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability of a Spinal Cord Injury-Specific Extension of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ-SCI).Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Content validity of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) for persons with spinal cord injury: A mixed methods study.Spinal cord · 2022Article
- Usability of self-reported assessment of work functioning in municipal occupational rehabilitation teams: A qualitative study.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2022Article
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
Purpose The Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) is a self-report vocational rehabilitation assessment. A comprehensive (WORQ-FULL) and a brief version (WORQ-BRIEF) are available. The purpose of this study was to investigate measurement properties of both versions in persons with physical disabilities. Methods Cross sectional and test-retest design. Adults with physical disabilities in vocational rehabilitation were included. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation; ICC), agreement between sessions (Bland-Altman Plots), criterion validity (ICC and agreement with Bland-Altman Plots between WORQ-FULL and WORQ-BRIEF) and convergent validity with the Work Ability Index -Single item (WAS) and the EuroQOL 5D-5L were analyzed. Results Out of the 91 individuals who agreed to participate, 74 (81%) returned questionnaire T1 and 49 (54%) participants returned questionnaire T2 within the maximum time interval (= 27 days). At T2, 28 (57%) participants reported no medical changes compared to T1. Median age was 49 (IQR 40-60), 57% were male, 47% had experienced a stroke and 27% a spinal cord injury (n = 49). Internal consistency was good: 0.95/0.95/0.94 for the WORQ-FULL and 0.88/0.89/0.85 for the WORQ-BRIEF (n = 74/n = 48/n = 28, respectively). Test-retest reliabilitywas good: ICC = 0.86/0.85 for the WORQ-FULL and ICC = 0.87/0.86 for the WORQ-BRIEF (n = 49/ n = 28). Bland Altman plots suggested a higher score at T1. As for criterion validity of the WORQ-FULL versus the WORQ-BRIEF, ICC was good (ICC = 0.84; n = 74), however Bland Altman plots indicated potential bias. Correlations with the WAS/EuroQOL 5D-5L were variable: r = -0.24/r = -0.57 (WORQ-FULL) and r = -0.28/-0.65 (WORQ-BRIEF). Conclusions The WORQ showed good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Agreement demonstrated large score differences are needed to indicate change beyond random chance at individual level, whereas small changes are sufficient at group level. Criterion validity of the WORQ-FULL versus the WORQ-BRIEF was supported, however, agreement demonstrated moderate to large score differences are needed to indicate change beyond random chance at individual level, whereas small changes are sufficient at group level. This indicates the WORQ-FULL and WORQ-BRIEF are better not used interchangeably. Correlation analyses provided better insight in the validity of the WORQ. Convergent validity was supported for the WORQ-BRIEF with the EuroQoL 5D-5L (r = -0.65).
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.