Advertisement

Reliability and Validity of the Work and Well-Being Inventory (WBI) for Self-Employed Workers: Test Norms of Employees Are Not Suitable for Entrepreneurs

  • Lex VendrigEmail author
  • Liesbeth Wijnvoord
  • Frederieke Schaafsma
Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose Sickness absence and work disability can be a major burden for society and for both employees and self-employed workers. Validated tools for assessing the psychosocial risk factors of long-term disability, for matching effective interventions and for deciding when to resume work can be of great value. However, no validated tools exist for self-employed workers. The purpose of this study is to adjust and to validate the Work and Wellbeing Inventory (WBI) for entrepreneurs. Methods The sample consisted of 676 self-employed workers with a private disability insurance policy. Three groups were distinguished: business owners, liberal professions and doctors and paramedics. Reliability, construct validity and concurrent validity of the WBI were examined. Scale scores were calculated for each group of self-employed workers and compared with the scores of a representative group of 912 Dutch employees to test the adequacy of the existing (employee) test norms. Results The WBI for the self-employed showed good to excellent reliability figures. The construct validity and the concurrent validity of the WBI could be confirmed. Overall, the self-employed scored higher on job satisfaction, social support at work and perfectionism (diligence) and had fewer mental health problems compared to employees. Self-employed workers should not be treated as one group, as there were important differences between entrepreneurs, liberal professions and doctors and paramedics. Conclusions The reliability and validity of the WBI were confirmed. Important differences in the scores of employees and the self-employed were revealed. In addition, the group of self-employed workers appeared to be rather heterogeneous.

Keywords

Screening tool Return to work Occupational health care Self-employed 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Lex Vendrig has developed the WBI (Dutch: VAR-2) and he participates in a project to support the online application of the VAR-2 (project: VAR-2-app). Frederieke Schaafsma and Liesbeth Wijnvoord declare they have no conflicts of interests.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Lännerström L, Wallman T, Holmström IK. Losing independence–the lived experience of being long-term sick-listed. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):745.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-745.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heerkens Y, Engels J, Kuiper C, Van der Gulden J, Oostendorp R. The use of the ICF to describe work related factors influencing the health of employees. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26(17):1060–1066.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Suls J, Rothman A. Evolution of the biopsychosocial model: prospects and challenges for health psychology. Health Psychol. 2004;23(2):119–125.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lammerts L, Schaafsma FG, Eikelenboom M, Vermeulen SJ, van Mechelen W, Anema JR. Longitudinal associations between biopsychosocial factors and sustainable return to work of sick-listed workers with a depressive or anxiety disorder. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;26(1):70–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vendrig AA, Schaafsma FGJ, Reliability and validity of the work and well-being inventory (WBI) for employees. Occup Rehabil. 2017;28(2):377–390.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9729-7.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gray H, Adefolarin AT, Howe TE. A systematic review of instruments for the assessment of work-related psychosocial factors (Blue Flags) in individuals with non-specific low back pain. Man Ther. 2011;16(6):531–543.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hatfield I. Self-employment in Europe. 2014. http://www.ippr.org/.
  8. 8.
    OECD. Self-employment rate (indicator).  https://doi.org/10.1787/fb58715e-en. Accessed 09 Sept 2018.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Wijnvoord LEC, Brouwer S, Buitenhuis J, van der Klink JJL, de Boer MR. Indications of a scarring effect of sickness absence periods in a cohort of higher educated self-employed. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(5):e0156025.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156025.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Warr P. Sel-employment, personal values, and varieties of happiness-unhappiness. J Occup Health Psychol. 2017;23(3):388–401.  https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000095.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prottas DJ, Thompson CA. Stress, satisfaction, and the work-family interface: a comparison of self-employed business owners, independents, and organizational employees. J Occup Health Psychol. 2006;11(4):366–378.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J Pers Assess. 1988;52(1):30–41.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zimet GD, Powell SS, Farley GK, Werkman S, Berkoff KA. Psychometric characteristics of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J Pers Assess. 1990;55(3):610–617.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dolbier CL, Webster JA, McCalister KT, Mallon MW, Steinhardt MA. Reliability and validity of a single-item measure of job satisfaction. Am J Health Promot. 2005;19(3):194–198.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Houtman I. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the karasek job content questionnaire. In: NIOSH/APA conference on stress, work and health. Washington, DC: APA; 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Doef M, Maes S. The job demand-control (-support) model and psychological well-being: a review of 20 years of empirical research. Work Stress. 1999;13(2):87–114.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49(1):71–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pavot WG, Diener E. Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychol Assess. 1993;5(2):164–172.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Duijsens IJ, Spinhoven Ph, Goedkoop JG, Spermon T, Eurelings-Bontekoe EHM. The Dutch temperament and character inventory (TCI): dimensional structure, reliability and validity in a normal and psychiatric outpatient sample. J Pers Ind Differ. 2000;28(3):487–499.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cloninger CR, Svrakic DM, PRzybek TR. A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1993;50(12):975–989.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lovibond SH, Lovibond PF. Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales. Sydney: Psychology Foundation; 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clark LA, Watson D. Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. J Abnorm Psychol. 1991;100(3):316–336.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nieuwenhuijsen K, de Boer AGEM, Verbeek JHAM, Blonk RWB, van Dijk FJH. The Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS): detecting anxiety disorder and depression in employees absent from work because of mental health problems. Occup Environ Med. 2002;60(Suppl I):77–82.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–483.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993;31(3):247–263.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Terluin B, van Marwijk HWJ, Adèr HJ, de Vet HCW, Penninx B, Hermens M, van Boeijen CA, Balkom A, van der Klink JJL, Stalman WAB. The four-dimensional symptom questionnaire (4DSQ): a validation study of a multidimensional self-report questionnaire to assess distress, depression, anxiety and somatization. BMC Psychiatry. 2006;6(1):1–20.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med. 2012;22(3):276–282.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dijkhuizen J, Van Veldhoven M, Schalk R. Development and validation of the Entrepreneurial Job Demands Scale. Int J Knowl Innov Entrep. 2014;2(1):70–88.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dijkhuizen J, Gorgievski M, van Veldhoven M, Schalk R. Feeling successful as an entrepreneur: a job demands-resources approach. Int Entrep Manag J. 2016;12(2):555–573.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Abma F, Bültmann U, Amick Iii BC, Arends I, Dorland HF, Flach PA, van der Klink JJL, van de Ven HA, Bjørner JB. The work role functioning questionnaire v2.0 showed consistent factor structure across six working samples. J Occup Rehabil. 2017;28(3):465–475.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9722-1.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Glasheen JJ, Misky GJ, Reid MB, Harrison RA, Sharpe B, Auerbach A. Career satisfaction and burnout in academic hospital medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(8):782–785.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Amoafo E, Hanbali N, Patel A, Singh P. What are the significant factors associated with burnout in doctors? Occup Med. 2015;65(2):117–121.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vledder Medical CentraVledderThe Netherlands
  2. 2.MovirNieuwegeinThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Public and Occupational HealthResearch Center for Insurance Medicine, AMC UMCG UWV VUmc. Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations