Test-Retest Reliability and Agreement of the Work Ability Index-Single Item in Persons With Physical Disabilities.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1016/j.apmr.2024.10.018
Renée van Dinter, Annemarie C Jenks, Ellen H Roels, Marcel W M Post, Michiel F Reneman
{"title":"Test-Retest Reliability and Agreement of the Work Ability Index-Single Item in Persons With Physical Disabilities.","authors":"Renée van Dinter, Annemarie C Jenks, Ellen H Roels, Marcel W M Post, Michiel F Reneman","doi":"10.1016/j.apmr.2024.10.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the test-retest reliability and agreement of the work ability index-single item (WAS) in persons with a physical disability.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Test-retest study, with a 2-4 week interval. Test-retest reliability was computed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The agreement was analyzed using Bland-Altman plots.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Vocational rehabilitation department of a rehabilitation center.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Patients with a physical disability (spinal cord injury, acquired brain injury, neuromuscular disease, or other).</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Not applicable.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The WAS consists of 1 question on self-reported current work ability compared with their highest work ability ever, rated on a 0-10 scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 44 patients were available and 22 patients reported no changes in work or medical situation between the 2 measurements. After excluding 1 outlier in this subgroup (n=21), the ICC was 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.96), the mean test-retest difference was -0.05 points and the limits of agreement were ±2.4 points.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The WAS is reliable for measuring work ability in persons with a physical disability. Using the WAS could be valuable as a routine outcome measure in vocational rehabilitation for persons with a physical disability.</p>","PeriodicalId":8313,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2024.10.018","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To assess the test-retest reliability and agreement of the work ability index-single item (WAS) in persons with a physical disability.

Design: Test-retest study, with a 2-4 week interval. Test-retest reliability was computed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The agreement was analyzed using Bland-Altman plots.

Setting: Vocational rehabilitation department of a rehabilitation center.

Participants: Patients with a physical disability (spinal cord injury, acquired brain injury, neuromuscular disease, or other).

Interventions: Not applicable.

Main outcome measures: The WAS consists of 1 question on self-reported current work ability compared with their highest work ability ever, rated on a 0-10 scale.

Results: Data from 44 patients were available and 22 patients reported no changes in work or medical situation between the 2 measurements. After excluding 1 outlier in this subgroup (n=21), the ICC was 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.96), the mean test-retest difference was -0.05 points and the limits of agreement were ±2.4 points.

Conclusions: The WAS is reliable for measuring work ability in persons with a physical disability. Using the WAS could be valuable as a routine outcome measure in vocational rehabilitation for persons with a physical disability.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肢体残疾人工作能力指数(单项)的重测可靠性和一致性。
目的评估肢体残疾人 WAS 的重测可靠性和一致性:设计:重测研究,间隔 2-4 周。采用类内相关系数(ICC)计算重测可靠性。使用布兰德-阿尔特曼图对一致性进行分析:地点:一家康复中心的职业康复部:干预措施:主要结果测量:WAS包括一个问题,即自我报告目前的工作能力与以往最高工作能力的比较,评分标准为0-10分:共有 44 名患者的数据,其中 22 名患者表示在两次测量之间工作或医疗状况没有变化。在排除了这一分组中的一个离群值(n=21)后,ICC 为 0.89(95% CI 0.76 至 0.96),平均测试-重复差异为-0.05 分,LoA 为 ± 2.4 分:WAS在测量肢体残疾人的工作能力方面是可靠的。结论:WAS 可用于测量肢体残疾人的工作能力,是一种可靠的方法,可作为肢体残疾人职业康复的常规结果测量方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.70%
发文量
495
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: The Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation publishes original, peer-reviewed research and clinical reports on important trends and developments in physical medicine and rehabilitation and related fields. This international journal brings researchers and clinicians authoritative information on the therapeutic utilization of physical, behavioral and pharmaceutical agents in providing comprehensive care for individuals with chronic illness and disabilities. Archives began publication in 1920, publishes monthly, and is the official journal of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Its papers are cited more often than any other rehabilitation journal.
期刊最新文献
Reliability and validity of instrumented timed up and go test in typical adults and elderly: a systematic review. Pneumonia Prolongs Rehabilitation Length of Stay and Induces Excess Costs in Adults with Acute Spinal Cord Injury: A Causal Inference Study Using Prospective Multi-Center Data. Technology-Based Physical Rehabilitation for Balance in people with Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Development of a Multidimensional, Multigroup Measure of Cognitive-Communication for Inpatient Rehabilitation. Masthead
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1