ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2025
Reliability and Construct Validity of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire Domains in Patients with Persistent Low Back Pain.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term effects on physical and mental health and work ability after COVID-19 versus other upper respiratory infections.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Reliability of a Spinal Cord Injury-Specific Extension of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ-SCI).Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) assesses patient functioning, including psychological, physical, and cognitive limitations. This study evaluates the WORQ domains in individuals with persistent low back pain (LBP), focusing on reliability and construct validity.
methodsIndividuals aged 18-65 with LBP completed WORQ and the workability index single item. A subgroup undertook sit-to-stand and 6-min walking tests and re-evaluated WORQ after 14 days. Reliability was assessed through internal consistency (McDonald's omega and Cronbach's alpha), test-retest reliability, and smallest detectable change. Construct validity was analyzed via Spearman's rank correlation and known group validity, with physical functioning also examined against sit-to-stand and 6-min walk test results for sensitivity/specificity. Floor and ceiling effects were assessed through classical and scale width methods.
resultsOf 425 participants, 149 completed physical tests, and 102 re-assessed WORQ. McDonald's omega and Cronbach's alpha indicated high internal consistency (0.92-0.96) with strong test-retest reliability (intraclass-correlation coefficients: 0.74-0.82). The smallest detectable change ranged from 4.62 to 7.82. Predictions from 7 out of 8 hypotheses were confirmed. Notable differences in domain scores were observed based on disability level and sick leave status, with varied diagnostic performance in physical functioning items. Potential floor effects were noted using the scale width method.
conclusionsThe WORQ demonstrated good reliability and satisfactory validity in assessing work-related functioning in individuals with persistent LBP. These findings support its use as a comprehensive tool for evaluating psychological, physical, and cognitive limitations. However, varied diagnostic performance in physical functioning items and potential floor effects suggest cautious interpretation in diverse clinical settings.
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.