ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2024
Employment barriers questionnaire: Development and determination of its reliability and validity.
Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evidence for return to work following complex orthopaedic injury - a scoping review.Work (Reading, Mass.) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe high unemployment rate among people with disabilities (PWDs) can be attributed to barriers found in the work environment and demands of the job itself. Given the lack of comprehensive tools to identify these barriers, we developed the Employment Barriers Questionnaire (EBQ).
objectiveThe objective of this study was to develop and examine the EBQ's reliability and validity for detecting employment barriers and possible modifications to overcome them.
methodsTwo stages were conducted: stage I was a cross-sectional design. Stage II included a cross-sectional and prospective design. Thirty-nine people with physical disabilities (mean age 47.21±10.78 years) were recruited, 51% of which were employed during data collection. During stage I, we developed a first version of the EBQ (EBQ.I) and evaluated its internal reliability. The EBQ.I was filled twice, one week apart to assess test-re-test reliability. Predictive validity was tested using a regression model to predict the employment status of stage II based on EBQ.I's results from stage I. In stage II, we generated a second version (EBQ.II) and tested its internal-reliability and known-groups validity, by comparing the EBQ.II's results between employed and unemployed subjects.
resultsThe results showed that the EBQ.II has a high internal-reliability (α= 0.79-0.97) and a medium-large known-groups validity (-3.95≤Z≤-2.26, p < 0.05). Additionally, the EBQ.I has a high test re-test reliability (ICC = 0.85-0.94, p < 0.001) and predictive validity (β= 0.861, p = 0.033).
conclusionThis study has illustrated that the EBQ.II is a unique, reliable and valid tool for identifying employment barriers and modifications to address them, expected to improve vocational rehabilitation efforts.
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.