| Title |
The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire v2.0 Showed Consistent Factor Structure Across Six Working Samples
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10926-017-9722-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Femke I. Abma, Ute Bültmann, Benjamin C. Amick III, Iris Arends, Heleen F. Dorland, Peter A. Flach, Jac J. L. van der Klink, Hardy A. van de Ven, Jakob Bue Bjørner |
| Abstract |
Objective The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire v2.0 (WRFQ) is an outcome measure linking a persons' health to the ability to meet work demands in the twenty-first century. We aimed to examine the construct validity of the WRFQ in a heterogeneous set of working samples in the Netherlands with mixed clinical conditions and job types to evaluate the comparability of the scale structure. Methods Confirmatory factor and multi-group analyses were conducted in six cross-sectional working samples (total N = 2433) to evaluate and compare a five-factor model structure of the WRFQ (work scheduling demands, output demands, physical demands, mental and social demands, and flexibility demands). Model fit indices were calculated based on RMSEA ≤ 0.08 and CFI ≥ 0.95. After fitting the five-factor model, the multidimensional structure of the instrument was evaluated across samples using a second order factor model. Results The factor structure was robust across samples and a multi-group model had adequate fit (RMSEA = 0.63, CFI = 0.972). In sample specific analyses, minor modifications were necessary in three samples (final RMSEA 0.055-0.080, final CFI between 0.955 and 0.989). Applying the previous first order specifications, a second order factor model had adequate fit in all samples. Conclusion A five-factor model of the WRFQ showed consistent structural validity across samples. A second order factor model showed adequate fit, but the second order factor loadings varied across samples. Therefore subscale scores are recommended to compare across different clinical and working samples. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 18% |
| Unknown | 22 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 23% |
| Psychology | 7 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 24 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,572,036
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#534
of 616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,540
of 316,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,227 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.