Psychometric testing of the British English Workplace Activity Limitations Scale in four rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions

Self Cite

Introduction: Rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD) impact on work participation. The aims of this study were to: examine work limitations of working people with: rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), osteoarthritis, or fibromyalgia using the Workplace Activity Limitations Scale (WALS, a measure of presenteeism); and identify personal, functioning and disability, and work contextual factors associated with presenteeism.Methods: Secondary analysis was conducted of a cross-sectional survey including work outcome measures (WORK-PROM study). A literature review identified variables (coded to ICF) to include in multivariable regressions examining factors associated with presenteeism.Results: Moderate to high WALS scores were identified in: 93.60% with FM; 69.90% OA; 65.20% RA; and 46.80% axSpA (n = 822). Similarities in work limitations were noted across conditions, although some more problematic in specific RMD. Participants received help with about a quarter of activities (27%RA; 25%FM; 23%OA; 17%axSpA) and work adaptations for less than a fifth causing difficulty (18%FM; 14%RA; 14%OA; 9%axSpA). Literature review identified 33 variables in the WORK-PROM dataset to include in multivariable regressions. Factors associated with higher WALS scores were worse: functional limitations, job strain, pain, difficulties with mental-interpersonal job demands, perceived health status, work-life balance, greater need for work accommodations and lack of perceived work support.

Section: The Workplace Activity Limitations Scalementioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Workplace Activity Limitations Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Work limitations and associated factors in rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia

Brown

Hammond

Ching

et al. 2023

Self Cite

“…Work scales: These evaluated both physical and emotional impact of conditions on work and included the British‐English WALS, a measure of presenteeism, with 12 items of physical work ability (eight items); managing work demands (physically and/or mentally) (three items); and concentration at work (one item), scored 0 = no difficulty to 3 = unable to do (range 0–36) (Hammond et al., 2023). Three sub‐scales of the Work Limitations Questionnaire‐25 (WLQ‐25) were assessed, indicating the percentage of time in the past two weeks participants had difficulty with Time Management Demands, Mental‐Interpersonal Demands, and Output Demands (Lerner et al., 2001).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Work scales: These evaluated both physical and emotional impact of conditions on work and included the British-English WALS, a measure of presenteeism, with 12 items of physical work ability (eight items); managing work demands (physically and/or mentally) (three items); and concentration at work (one item), scored 0 = no difficulty to 3 = unable to do (range 0-36) (Hammond et al, 2023).…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric testing of the British‐English Long‐Term Conditions Job Strain Scale, Long‐Term Conditions Work Spillover Scale and Work‐Health‐Personal Life Perceptions Scale in four rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions

Hammond

Tennant

Ching

et al. 2023

Self Cite

ObjectiveThe aims were to validate linguistically British‐English versions of the Long‐Term Conditions Job Strain Scale (LTCJSS), Long‐Term Conditions Work Spillover Scale (LTCWSS) and Work‐Health‐Personal Life Perceptions Scale (WHPLPS) in rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia (FM).MethodsThe three scales were forward translated and reviewed by an expert panel prior to cognitive debriefing interviews. Participants completed a postal questionnaire. Construct validity was assessed using Rasch analysis. Concurrent validity included testing between the three scales and work (e.g., Workplace Activity Limitations Scale [WALS]) and condition‐specific health scales. Two weeks later, participants were mailed a second questionnaire to measure test‐retest reliability.ResultsThe questionnaire was completed by 831 employed participants: 68% women, 53.5 (SD 8.9) years of age, with condition duration 7.7 (SD 8.0) years. The LTCJSS, LTCWSS and WHPLPS Parts 1 and 2 satisfied Rasch model requirements, but Part 3 did not. A Rasch transformation scale and Reference Metric equating scales with the WALS were created. Concurrent validity was generally good (rs = 0.41–0.85) for the three scales, except the WHPLPS Part 3. Internal consistency (Person Separation Index values) was consistent with group use in all conditions, and individual use except for the LTCWSS and WHPLSP Parts 1 and 2 in FM. Test‐retest reliability was excellent, with intraclass coefficients (2,1) of 0.80–0.96 for the three scales in the four conditions.DiscussionReliable, valid versions of the British‐English LTCJSS, LTCWSS and WHPLPS Parts 1 and 2 are now available for use in the UK.

Psychometric testing of the British‐English Perceived Workplace Support Scale, Work Accommodations, Benefits, Policies and Practices Scale, and Work Transitions Index in four rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions

Hammond,

Tennant,

Ching

et al. 2023

Self Cite

ObjectiveThe aims were to validate linguistically British‐English versions of the Perceived Workplace Support Scale (PWSS), Work Accommodations, Benefits, Policies and Practices Scale (WABPPS), and Work Transitions Index (WTI) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), osteoarthritis (OA) and fibromyalgia (FM).MethodsThe three scales were adapted into British‐English and reviewed by an expert panel prior to cognitive debriefing interviews. Participants completed postal questionnaires. Construct validity for the PWSS was assessed using Rasch analysis. Concurrent validity included testing between the three scales and work, job strain and work‐life balance scales. Two weeks later, participants were mailed a second questionnaire to measure test‐retest reliability.ResultsThe questionnaire was completed by 831 employed participants: 68% women, 53.50 (SD 8.9) years of age, with condition duration 7.70 (SD 8.00) years. The PWSS satisfied Rasch model requirements. Concurrent validity was mostly as hypothesised, that is, weak to moderate negative correlations for the PWSS (rs = 0.07 to −0.61), and weak to moderate positive correlations for the WABPPS and WTI (rs = 0.20–0.52). Some correlations were stronger, mostly in axSpA. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) for all three scales was consistent with group use in all conditions. Test‐retest reliability was generally excellent, with intraclass coefficients (2,1) of 0.80–0.93 for the three scales in the four conditions.DiscussionReliable, valid versions of the British‐English PWSS, WABPPS, and WTI are now available for use in research, organisational level studies and vocational rehabilitation.