Validation of the Readiness for Return-To-Work Scale in Outpatient Occupational Rehabilitation in Canada

Abstract

Purpose To examine construct and concurrent validity of the Readiness for Return-To-Work (RRTW) Scale with injured workers participating in an outpatient occupational rehabilitation program. Methods Lost-time claimants (n = 389) with sub-acute or chronic musculoskeletal disorders completed the RRTW Scale on their first day of their occupational rehabilitation program. Statistical analysis included exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the readiness items, reliability analyses, and correlation with related scales and questionnaires. Results For claimants in the non-job attached/not working group (n = 165), three factors were found (1) Contemplation (2) Prepared for Action-Self-evaluative and (3) Prepared for Action-Behavioural. The precontemplation stage was not identified within this sample of injured workers. For claimants who were job attached/working group in some capacity (n = 224), two factors were identified (1) Uncertain Maintenance and (2) Proactive Maintenance. Expected relationships and statistically significant differences were found among the identified Return-To-Work (RTW) readiness factors and related constructs of pain, physical and mental health and RTW expectations. Conclusion Construct and concurrent validity of the RRTW Scale were supported in this study. The results of this study indicate the construct of readiness for RTW can vary by disability duration and occupational category. Physical health appears to be a significant barrier to RRTW for the job attached/working group while mental health significantly compromises RRTW with the non-job attached/not working group.

Cross‐cultural translation and adaptation of the Readiness for Return To Work questionnaire for Dutch cancer survivors

“…A reason for this is that the question ‘you have a date for your first day…’ is a question that can only be answered by ‘yes’ or ‘no’, rather than on a five‐category scale. This issue has been identified in earlier research on the RRTW questionnaire, where the authors of the study have decided to remove this item from the questionnaire (Park et al., 2018). Although this item remains relevant and can still be used by (occupational) health care professionals, we recommend it not to be used as part of the RRTW questionnaire in the future.…”

“…Support for construct validity of the RRTW questionnaire was found when compared with health and disability measures (Franche et al., 2007). However, another Canadian study conducted in an outpatient vocational rehabilitation setting identified only five RRTW stages after factor analysis (Park et al., 2018).…”

Return to employment for working-aged adults after burn injury: a scoping review protocol

“…31 50 51 Motivational factors such as decisional balance, self-efficacy and change processes have also been identified as key influences on return to work more broadly. 52 53 We will therefore consider a behavioural change model (such as the Readiness for Change Model) 52 54 to examine personal motivation factors for returning to employment if appropriate. This will enable a more person-centred approach contextualised to its appropriate sociocultural setting and environment.…”

Fears of COVID-19 and cancer recurrence related to work sustainability among male cancer survivors

“…The Chinese version of the RRTW scale was used to assess motivation to remain at work or work sustainability. The full RRTW scale is a 22-item scale; however, this study only used the work maintenance subscale as a measure of work sustainability [14,15], which consisted of a total of four items. Each item uses a five-point Likert scale, with "1" indicating strongly disagree and "5" indicating strongly agree.…”