Work Ability of Employees with Disabilities in Malaysia

Abstract

Purpose: Based on a sample of employees with disability, this study aimed to: (1) evaluate the construct validity of work ability index (WAI), core self-evaluation scale (CSES) and job in general index (JIG), in order to make a valid and reliable assessment of their work ability, job satisfaction and core self-evaluation; (2) assess their levels of work ability, job satisfaction, and core self-evaluation; (3) investigate the associations of work ability with job satisfaction and core self-evaluation among them; and (4) determine which demographic characteristics significantly affect the work ability of employees with disability.Methods: The sample consisted of 275 employees with disability. Data was collected using a self-administered survey. The analysis focussed on: (1) CFA- for evidence of the construct validity of the employed scales; (2) Descriptive analysis - for evaluating the variables of the study; (3) Pearson correlation analysis – for understanding the simple correlation between variables of the study; and, (4) One-way ANOVA- for identifying the demographic factors that influence the work ability of employees with disability.Results: The findings indicated that 29.5% of the participants had poor levels of work ability, while 35.3% reported moderate levels of work ability. Also, 49.1% of the participants reported moderate levels of core self-evaluation, and 70.5% exhibited high job satisfaction. In this study, work ability was found to be associated with core self-evaluation and job satisfaction. Significant differences in work ability levels were found in terms of age, level ofeducation and employment status of the respondents.Conclusion: Work ability among employees with disabilities did not seem to be influenced merely by individual health status. Attitudinal and dispositional factors appeared to have a significant impact on their levels of work ability. The potential positive impact of education and employment status on employees’ levels of work ability are highlighted in this study.

Work Ability Index: Validation and Model Comparison of the Malaysian Work Ability Index (WAI)

“…The final proposed model (Model F), illustrated in Figure 6, is again a nonorthogonal model in which subscales 1, 2 and 7 loaded into the subjective work ability factor; the subscales 3 and 5 loaded into the health-related work ability factor; and subscales 4 and 6 loaded into the two factors. Table 4 illustrates the factor loadings of one-factor structure model of WAI(Model A).The results indicate that in line with previous studies (Gould et al,2008;Lavasani et al, 2015) the subscales 1, 2 and 4 have the greatest impact on the cumulative index of WAI (the respective factor loadings ranged from 0.86 to 0.92).…”

“…On the other hand, Lavasani et al (2015) and Martus et al (2010) argued against excluding subscale 5 as suggested by Radkiewicz and Widerszal-Bazyla (2005), and concluded that the proposal of excluding subscale 5 cannot be confirmed by the confirmatory factor analysis. However, in consonance with Radkiewicz and Widerszal-Bazyla (2005), they suggested that in their psychometric analysis, the Work Ability Index showed a two-dimensional structure including subjective estimated work ability and objective health status of work ability.…”

“…The Work Ability Index (WAI) scores range from7-49, and are divided into the following four Work Ability categories: poor (7-27 points),moderate(28-36 points), good (37-43 points), and excellent (44-49 points) . The psychometric properties and the validity and reliability of Work Ability Index (WAI) are described in detail elsewhere (Ilmarinen and Tuomi, 2004;Radkiewicz and Widerszal-Bazyl, 2005;Lavasani et al, 2015). The Work Ability Index (WAI) is a validated tool, widely used in different European countries, China and Brazil, and has been translated into 26 languages ( Ilmarinen, 2009;Martus et al, 2010).…”

Validity and Reliability of a Self-Acceptance Scale for Youth with Physical Disabilities

“…Researchers and practitioners have identified a range of key success ingredients of a profession, a college, positive relationships, and opportunities to contribute to the community. These elements include involvement in inclusive education and other settings (Lavasani et al, 2015;Wehman, 2006), opportunities for leadership growth (Wehmeyer et al, 1998), mentoring, target design experience (Kim & Turnbull, 2004), being polite and maintaining positive social relationships. However, none of the previous efforts have included selfacceptance assessment interventions to understand the participants' profiles in transition programs.…”

Employment Governance for People with Disabilities: Comparative Study Between Indonesia and Malaysia

“…Active participation of people with disability in the workforce is beneficial to both individuals and society. Equal employment opportunities for people with disability would improve their quality of life and enable them to integrate into society, thereby contributing to feelings of self-worth and selfassurance [8]. Furthermore, being able to work and support themselves and their families would empower them with a sense of self-sustenance.…”