Validity and Reliability of the Upper Extremity Work Demands Scale

Nora W. Jacobs; Redmar J. Berduszek; Pieter U. Dijkstra; Corry K. van der Sluis

doi:10.1007/s10926-016-9683-9

Validity and Reliability of the Upper Extremity Work Demands Scale

Nora W. Jacobs, Redmar J. Berduszek^*, Pieter U. Dijkstra, Corry K. van der Sluis

^*Corresponding author for this work

EXtremities Pain Active lifestyle aNd Disability (EXPAND)

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

17 Citations (Scopus)

271 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate validity and reliability of the upper extremity work demands (UEWD) scale.

Methods: Participants from different levels of physical work demands, based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles categories, were included. A historical database of 74 workers was added for factor analysis. Criterion validity was evaluated by comparing observed and self-reported UEWD scores. To assess structural validity, a factor analysis was executed. For reliability, the difference between two self-reported UEWD scores, the smallest detectable change (SDC), test-retest reliability and internal consistency were determined.

Results: Fifty-four participants were observed at work and 51 of them filled in the UEWD twice with a mean interval of 16.6 days (SD 3.3, range = 10-25 days). Criterion validity of the UEWD scale was moderate (r = .44, p = .001). Factor analysis revealed that 'force and posture' and 'repetition' subscales could be distinguished with Cronbach's alpha of .79 and .84, respectively. Reliability was good; there was no significant difference between repeated measurements. An SDC of 5.0 was found. Test-retest reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient for agreement = .84) and all item-total correlations were >.30. There were two pairs of highly related items.

Conclusion: Reliability of the UEWD scale was good, but criterion validity was moderate. Based on current results, a modified UEWD scale (2 items removed, 1 item reworded, divided into 2 subscales) was proposed. Since observation appeared to be an inappropriate gold standard, we advise to investigate other types of validity, such as construct validity, in further research.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	520-529
Number of pages	10
Journal	Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
Volume	27
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-016-9683-9
Publication status	Published - Dec-2017

Keywords

Work
Occupational exposure
Upper extremity
Self report
Reproducibility of results
UPPER-LIMB DISORDERS
EXPLORATORY FACTOR-ANALYSIS
RISK-FACTORS
ASSESSING AGREEMENT
POPULATION
REPRODUCIBILITY
QUESTIONNAIRE
PREDICTORS
EXPOSURES
OUTCOMES

Access to Document

10.1007/s10926-016-9683-9Licence: CC BY

Validity and Reliability of the Upper Extremity Work Demands ScaleFinal publisher's version, 439 KBLicence: CC BY

Handle.net

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{5ea4a0ec0da44e2d8a25b45ca05f420c,

title = "Validity and Reliability of the Upper Extremity Work Demands Scale",

abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate validity and reliability of the upper extremity work demands (UEWD) scale. Methods: Participants from different levels of physical work demands, based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles categories, were included. A historical database of 74 workers was added for factor analysis. Criterion validity was evaluated by comparing observed and self-reported UEWD scores. To assess structural validity, a factor analysis was executed. For reliability, the difference between two self-reported UEWD scores, the smallest detectable change (SDC), test-retest reliability and internal consistency were determined. Results: Fifty-four participants were observed at work and 51 of them filled in the UEWD twice with a mean interval of 16.6 days (SD 3.3, range = 10-25 days). Criterion validity of the UEWD scale was moderate (r = .44, p = .001). Factor analysis revealed that 'force and posture' and 'repetition' subscales could be distinguished with Cronbach's alpha of .79 and .84, respectively. Reliability was good; there was no significant difference between repeated measurements. An SDC of 5.0 was found. Test-retest reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient for agreement = .84) and all item-total correlations were >.30. There were two pairs of highly related items. Conclusion: Reliability of the UEWD scale was good, but criterion validity was moderate. Based on current results, a modified UEWD scale (2 items removed, 1 item reworded, divided into 2 subscales) was proposed. Since observation appeared to be an inappropriate gold standard, we advise to investigate other types of validity, such as construct validity, in further research.",

keywords = "Work, Occupational exposure, Upper extremity, Self report, Reproducibility of results, UPPER-LIMB DISORDERS, EXPLORATORY FACTOR-ANALYSIS, RISK-FACTORS, ASSESSING AGREEMENT, POPULATION, REPRODUCIBILITY, QUESTIONNAIRE, PREDICTORS, EXPOSURES, OUTCOMES",

author = "Jacobs, {Nora W.} and Berduszek, {Redmar J.} and Dijkstra, {Pieter U.} and {van der Sluis}, {Corry K.}",

year = "2017",

month = dec,

doi = "10.1007/s10926-016-9683-9",

language = "English",

volume = "27",

pages = "520--529",

journal = "Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation",

issn = "1053-0487",

publisher = "SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validity and Reliability of the Upper Extremity Work Demands Scale

AU - Jacobs, Nora W.

AU - Berduszek, Redmar J.

AU - Dijkstra, Pieter U.

AU - van der Sluis, Corry K.

PY - 2017/12

Y1 - 2017/12

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate validity and reliability of the upper extremity work demands (UEWD) scale. Methods: Participants from different levels of physical work demands, based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles categories, were included. A historical database of 74 workers was added for factor analysis. Criterion validity was evaluated by comparing observed and self-reported UEWD scores. To assess structural validity, a factor analysis was executed. For reliability, the difference between two self-reported UEWD scores, the smallest detectable change (SDC), test-retest reliability and internal consistency were determined. Results: Fifty-four participants were observed at work and 51 of them filled in the UEWD twice with a mean interval of 16.6 days (SD 3.3, range = 10-25 days). Criterion validity of the UEWD scale was moderate (r = .44, p = .001). Factor analysis revealed that 'force and posture' and 'repetition' subscales could be distinguished with Cronbach's alpha of .79 and .84, respectively. Reliability was good; there was no significant difference between repeated measurements. An SDC of 5.0 was found. Test-retest reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient for agreement = .84) and all item-total correlations were >.30. There were two pairs of highly related items. Conclusion: Reliability of the UEWD scale was good, but criterion validity was moderate. Based on current results, a modified UEWD scale (2 items removed, 1 item reworded, divided into 2 subscales) was proposed. Since observation appeared to be an inappropriate gold standard, we advise to investigate other types of validity, such as construct validity, in further research.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate validity and reliability of the upper extremity work demands (UEWD) scale. Methods: Participants from different levels of physical work demands, based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles categories, were included. A historical database of 74 workers was added for factor analysis. Criterion validity was evaluated by comparing observed and self-reported UEWD scores. To assess structural validity, a factor analysis was executed. For reliability, the difference between two self-reported UEWD scores, the smallest detectable change (SDC), test-retest reliability and internal consistency were determined. Results: Fifty-four participants were observed at work and 51 of them filled in the UEWD twice with a mean interval of 16.6 days (SD 3.3, range = 10-25 days). Criterion validity of the UEWD scale was moderate (r = .44, p = .001). Factor analysis revealed that 'force and posture' and 'repetition' subscales could be distinguished with Cronbach's alpha of .79 and .84, respectively. Reliability was good; there was no significant difference between repeated measurements. An SDC of 5.0 was found. Test-retest reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient for agreement = .84) and all item-total correlations were >.30. There were two pairs of highly related items. Conclusion: Reliability of the UEWD scale was good, but criterion validity was moderate. Based on current results, a modified UEWD scale (2 items removed, 1 item reworded, divided into 2 subscales) was proposed. Since observation appeared to be an inappropriate gold standard, we advise to investigate other types of validity, such as construct validity, in further research.

KW - Work

KW - Occupational exposure

KW - Upper extremity

KW - Self report

KW - Reproducibility of results

KW - UPPER-LIMB DISORDERS

KW - EXPLORATORY FACTOR-ANALYSIS

KW - RISK-FACTORS

KW - ASSESSING AGREEMENT

KW - POPULATION

KW - REPRODUCIBILITY

KW - QUESTIONNAIRE

KW - PREDICTORS

KW - EXPOSURES

KW - OUTCOMES

U2 - 10.1007/s10926-016-9683-9

DO - 10.1007/s10926-016-9683-9

M3 - Article

SN - 1053-0487

VL - 27

SP - 520

EP - 529

JO - Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

JF - Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

IS - 4

ER -

Validity and Reliability of the Upper Extremity Work Demands Scale

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Handle.net

Fingerprint

Cite this