2014
DOI: 10.3109/13651501.2014.894072
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The work and social adjustment scale: Reliability, sensitivity and value

Abstract: The WSAS, PHQ-9 and GAD-7 perform comparably on measures of reliability and sensitivity. The WSAS also measures a distinct social functioning component suggesting it has potential as an additional outcome measure.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

9
84
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 109 publications
(100 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
9
84
2
Order By: Relevance
“…We did not specify a primary clinical outcome measure as the primary aim of this study related to feasibility. Clinical outcome measures collected were: Short Form 36 (SF36);12 Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS);13 EQ-5D-5L;14 Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS);15 5-point patient rated Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI);16 17 Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH);18 Functional Mobility Scale;19 Berg Balance Scale;20 Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ);21 and 10 m timed walk. The CGI was collapsed into two groups: good outcome (ratings of much improved and improved) and poor outcome (ratings of no change, worse or much worse).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We did not specify a primary clinical outcome measure as the primary aim of this study related to feasibility. Clinical outcome measures collected were: Short Form 36 (SF36);12 Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS);13 EQ-5D-5L;14 Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS);15 5-point patient rated Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI);16 17 Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH);18 Functional Mobility Scale;19 Berg Balance Scale;20 Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ);21 and 10 m timed walk. The CGI was collapsed into two groups: good outcome (ratings of much improved and improved) and poor outcome (ratings of no change, worse or much worse).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cronbach’s α measure of internal consistency of WSAS range from 0.80 to 0.94, with test–retest reliability of 0.73. The WSAS also has good convergent and discriminant validity and is sensitive to patient differences in severity, as well as treatment-related change 34,35…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cronbach’s α measure of internal consistency ranges from 0.80 to 0.94, with test-retest reliability of 0.73. The WSAS also has good convergent and discriminant validity, and is sensitive to patient differences in severity, as well as treatment-related change [38, 39]. …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%