ArticleSpinal cord2022
Content validity of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) for persons with spinal cord injury: A mixed methods study.
Article in Spinal cord, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reliability of a Spinal Cord Injury-Specific Extension of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ-SCI).Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Assessment of Work Ability in People with Musculoskeletal Disorders in Primary Health Care: A Scoping Review of Self-Reported Tools.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2025Article
- The extent to which medical specialists provide Clinical Work-Integrating Care (CWIC) and their perceived role-responsibility: a mixed-methods study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designMixed methods.
objectivesThe aim of our study was to investigate the content validity of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) for use in persons with post-acute and chronic spinal cord injury (SCI).
settingA university-based Rehabilitation Center in The Netherlands.
methodsContents of the WORQ, brief ICF core sets for SCI for post-acute care and for chronic situation were compared with semi-guided interviews with persons with SCI and controlled for relevance by SCI rehabilitation professionals in two group meetings.
resultsFourteen interviews with persons with SCI were performed. Two group meetings with 8 and 9 SCI rehabilitation professionals were held. Thirty seven of the 46 ICF categories (80%) of the WORQ were confirmed by both sources: mentioned in interviews with persons with SCI and considered important by the SCI professionals. The remaining 9 categories (20%) were confirmed by either the persons with SCI or the SCI professionals. Fourteen ICF categories that are part of the brief ICF core set for SCI for acute care and/or chronic situation, however are not part of the WORQ, have revealed importance by persons with SCI and SCI professionals.
conclusionOur study confirms that most categories of the WORQ are important to consider for VR in persons with SCI, however, there are ICF categories that are absent in the WORQ and deemed relevant for use in VR in persons with SCI. Consequently, the content validity of the WORQ without additional items is insufficient for persons with SCI.
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.