Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Dutch Version of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ-VL)

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose The Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) was developed to evaluate work functioning in vocational rehabilitation, but was not yet available in Dutch. The goal of this study is twofold: a description of the cross-cultural adaptation process (part 1) of the WORQ to be used in Flanders (The Dutch speaking part of Belgium, WORQ-VL) and a presentation of the first psychometric testing of the WORQ-VL (part 2). Methods For part 1, the guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures by Beaton et al. were used to structure the cross-cultural adaptation. For part 2, a cross-sectional study was conducted in patients with musculoskeletal disorders [sample A: hand and wrist rehabilitation (n = 21) and sample B: fibromyalgia patients (n = 93)] who completed the WORQ-VL. Internal consistency and factor structure were examined in the total sample, whereas convergent and discriminant validity of the WORQ-VL were researched in sample A. Results First results on the convergent validity and discriminant validity (small sample size) and internal consistency of the WORQ-VL are promising. The exploratory factor analysis revealed seven factors which were labeled as ‘cognition’, ‘physical’, ‘mood’, ‘activities of daily living’, ‘sensory’, ‘emotional’ and ‘social’. The best evidence was found for the ‘physical’ subscale of the WORQ-VL: strong correlations were found with the ‘physical functioning’ and ‘role limitations—physical’ subscales of the Short-Form Health Survey, respectively r = − .84 and r = − .59, p < .01. As expected, predominantly weak correlations were found with hand grip strength, kinesiophobia, hand-related aesthetics and satisfaction (ranging between r = − .38 and r = .34, p > .05). Conclusions The WORQ-VL is a user-friendly and valuable ICF-based self-report questionnaire to evaluate work functioning. Future studies are highly needed to examine the value of the WORQ within different patient populations and settings in order to examine further the added value of this self-report measure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stucki G, Brage S, Homa D, Escorpizo R. Chapter 1: conceptual framework: disability evaluation and vocational rehabilitation. In: Escorpizo R, Brage S, Homa D, Stucki G, editors. Handbook of vocational rehabilitation and disability evaluation: application and implementation of the ICF. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015. pp. 3–10.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Rinaldo U, Selander J. Return to work after vocational rehabilitation for sick-listed workers with long-term back, neck and shoulder problems: a follow-up study of factors involved. Work 2016;55(1):115–131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schultz IZ, Chleback CM, Law AK. Chapter 13: bridging the gap: evidence-informed early intervention practices for injured workers with nonvisible disabilities. In: Handbook of return to work: from research to practice. New York: Springer; 2016. pp. 223–253.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Jetha A, Pransky G, Fish J, Hettinger LJ. Return-to-work within a complex and dynamic organizational work disability system. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;26(3):276–285.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Escorpizo R, Finger ME, Glässel A, Gradinger F, Lückenkemper M, Cieza A. A systematic review of functioning in vocational rehabilitation using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(2):134–146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Farholm A, Halvari H, Niemiec CP, Williams GC, Deci EL. Changes in return to work among patients in vocational rehabilitation: a self-determination theory perspective. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(20):2039–2046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Escorpizo R, Reneman MF, Ekholm J, Fritz J, Krupa T, Marnetoft S, et al. A conceptual definition of vocational rehabilitation based on the ICF: building a shared model. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(2):126–133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Alexander L, Cooper K, Mitchell D, MacLean C. Effectiveness of vocational rehabilitation on work participation in adults with musculoskeletal disorders: an umbrella review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2017;15(6):1518–1521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Escorpizo R, Finger ME, Reneman MF. Chapter 6: integration and application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in return to work. In: Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ, editors. Handbook of return to work. New York: Springer; 2016. pp. 99–118.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Momsen AH, Stapelfeldt CM, Rosbjerg R, Escorpizo R, Labriola M, Bjerrum M. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in vocational rehabilitation: a scoping review of the state of the field. J Occup Rehabil. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-018-9788-4.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Finger ME, Escorpizo R, Glässel A, Gmünder HP, Lückenkemper M, Chan C, et al. ICF Core Set for vocational rehabilitation: results of an international consensus conference. Disabil Rehabil. 2012; 34(5):429–438.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Finger ME, Escorpizo R, Bostan C, De Bie R. Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ): development and preliminary psychometric evidence of an ICF-based questionnaire for vocational rehabilitation. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24(3):498–510.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Homa D, DeLambo D. Chapter 8: vocational assessment and job placement. In: Escorpizo R, Brage S, Homa D, Stucki G, editors. Handbook of vocational rehabilitation and disability evaluation: application and implementation of the ICF. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015. pp. 161–186.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Selb M, Finger ME, Escorpizo R. Chapter 24: applying the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire WORQ: a case illustrating its use in evaluating functioning of a person after a traumatic brain injury in an interprofessional vocational rehabilitation setting. In: Escorpizo R, Brage S, Homa D, Stucki G, editors. Handbook of vocational rehabilitation and disability evaluation: application and implementation of the ICF. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015. pp. 521–543.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Jensen MP. Chapter 21: motivational interviewing for enhancing return to work. In: Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ, editors. Handbook of return to work. New York: Springer; 2016. pp. 365–379.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Portmann R, Bergamaschi R, Escorpizo R, Staubli S, Finger ME. Content validity of the work rehabilitation questionnaire-self-report version WORQ-SELF in a subgroup of spinal cord injury patients. Spinal Cord. 2014;52(3):225–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Finger ME, Wicki-Roten V, Leger B, Escorpizo R. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) to French: a valid and reliable instrument to assess work functioning. J Occup Rehabil. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-018-9795-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Finger ME, Selb M, De Bie R, Escorpizo R. Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in physiotherapy in multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation: a case study of low back pain. Physiother Res Int. 2015;20(4):231–241.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Finger ME, De Bie R, Nowak D, Escorpizo R. Chapter 23: development and testing of an ICF-based questionnaire to evaluate functioning in vocational rehabilitation: the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ). In: Escorpizo R, Brage S, Homa D, Stucki G, editors. Handbook of vocational rehabilitation and disability evaluation: application and implementation of the ICF. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015. pp. 495–520.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000;25(24):3186–3191.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Huijsmans R, Sluiter H, Aufdemkampe G. Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire–Dutch Language Version. A questionnaire for patients with hand functioning problems. Fysiopraxis 2001;9:38–41.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Veehof MM, Sleegers EJ, van Veldhoven NH, Schuurman AH, van Meeteren NL. Psychometric qualities of the Dutch language version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH-DLV). J Hand Ther. 2002;15(4):347–354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vlaeyen JWS, Kole-Snijders AMJ, Boeren RGB, Van Eek H. Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain and its relation to behavioral performance. Pain 1995;62(3):363–372.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Razavai D, Gandek B. Testing Dutch and French translations of the SF-36 health survey among Belgian angina patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):975–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Marx RG, Menezes A, Horovitz L, Jones EC, Warren RF. A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(8):730–735.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–163.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Tabachnick CB. Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson Education Inc; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Stamm TA, Pieber K, Crevenna R, Dorner TE. Impairment in the activities of daily living in older adults with and without osteoporosis, osteoarthritis and chronic back pain: a secondary analysis of population-based health survey data. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-0994-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Annemans L. Health economics for non-economists: an introduction to the concepts, methods and pitfalls of health economic evaluations. Gent: Academia Press; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Madden RH, Bundy A. The ICF has made a difference to functioning and disability measurement and statistics. Disabil Rehabil. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1431812.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Polit DF. Getting serious about test-retest reliability: a critique of retest research and some recommendations. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(6):1713–1720.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandenk B. SF-36 health survey: manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Nelson EC, Eftimovska EE, Lind C, Hager A, Wasson JH. Patient reported outome measures in practice. BMJ. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7818.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RWJG, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Lif Res. 2012;21(4):651–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Selb M, Glässel A, Escorpizo R. Chapter 22: ICF-based tools in rehabilitation toward return to work: facilitating inter-professional communication and comprehensive documentation. In: Escorpizo R, Brage S, Homa D, Stucki G, editors. Handbook of vocational rehabilitation and disability evaluation: application and implementation of the ICF. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015. pp. 471–494.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Black O, Keegel T, Sim MR, Collie A, Smith P. The effect of self-efficacy on return-to-work outcomes for workers with psychological or upper-body musculoskeletal injuries: a review of the literature. J Occup Rehabil. 2018;28(1):16–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Cancelliere C, Donavan J, Stochkendahl MJ, Biscardi M, Ammendolia C, Myburgh C, Cassidy JD. Factors affecting return to work after injury or illness: best evidence synthesis of systematic reviews. Chiropr Man Therap. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-016-0113-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Chen YH, Hsu CY, Lien SH, Yu SJ, Chang JM, Su SW, Chao YH. Entry into vocational rehabilitation program following work-related hand injury: potential candidates. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2016; 29(1):101–111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Reneman MF. Chapter 9: state of vocational rehabilitation and disability evaluation in chronic musculoskeletal pain complaints. In: Escorpizo R, Brage S, Homa D, Stucki G, editors. Handbook of vocational rehabilitation and disability evaluation: application and implementation of the ICF. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015. pp. 187–198.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is a part of a larger study and is performed in close collaboration with the ‘Centre of knowledge on work incapacity’ of the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI) Belgium.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Katrien Vermeulen, Kristine Oostra, Sybille Geers, Kristien Ryngaert & Kimberley Van de Velde

  2. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Maxim Woestyn, Stijn De Baets & Dominique Van de Velde

  3. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Filip Descheemaeker

Authors
  1. Katrien Vermeulen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maxim Woestyn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristine Oostra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sybille Geers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kristien Ryngaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kimberley Van de Velde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Filip Descheemaeker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Stijn De Baets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Dominique Van de Velde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katrien Vermeulen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The study was approved by the Ethics Commission of the Ghent University Hospital and was granted the number B670201731223.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vermeulen, K., Woestyn, M., Oostra, K. et al. Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Dutch Version of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ-VL). J Occup Rehabil 29, 514–525 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-018-9812-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-018-9812-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation