Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Version of the Work Ability Index in Working Individuals

Abstract

It is increasingly important to have validated instruments to assess the ability to work. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Work Ability Index (WAI) in working individuals. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 360 workers (men and women) in a high-complexity public hospital and in a public university. The participants were between 40 and 75 years, with a contract of at least 11 h weekly. The ability to work was assessed using the WAI and the perception of health through the Short Form 36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36 v2). The concurrent validity was analyzed, correlating the WAI with the SF-36 v2. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to test construct validity. In addition, the internal consistency of the WAI was analyzed using the standardized Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The WAI showed a positive and statistically significant correlation (p < 0.001) with the SF-36 v2. The exploratory factor analysis showed three factors interpreted as, “Mental Resources”, “Diseases and Health-Related Restrictions”, and “Self-perception of Work Ability”. The reliability of the factors was acceptable, except for the second factor, which was poor. The WAI demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties, such as internal consistency, concurrent and construct validity, constituting a reliable instrument to measure work ability for the population of active working individuals in the service sector.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    Ilmarinen J. The ageing workforce: challenges for occupational health. Occup Med (Chic Ill). 2006;56(6):362–364. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kql046.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Tuomi K, Ilmarinen J, Jahkola A, Katajarinne L, Tulkki A. Work Ability Index. 2nd ed. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Brouwer S, Reneman MF, Dijkstra PU, Groothoff JW, Schellekens JM, Göeken LN. Test-retest reliability of the Isernhagen Work Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation in patients with chronic low back pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2003;13(4):207–218.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Gibson L, Strong J, Wallace A. Functional capacity evaluation as a performance measure: evidence for a new approach for clients with chronic back pain. Clin J Pain. 2005;21(3):207–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Reneman MF, Jorritsma W, Schellekens JMH, Göeken LNH. Concurrent validity of questionnaire and performance-based disability measurements in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2002;12(3):119–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ilmarinen J. Work ability—a comprehensive concept for occupational health research and prevention. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2009;35(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ilmarinen J, Tuomi K. Past, present and future of work ability. In: Ilmarinen J, Lehtinen S, editors. Past, Present and Future of Work Ability. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 2004. p. 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Radkiewicz P, Widerszal-Bazyl M. Psychometric properties of Work Ability Index in the light of comparative survey study. Int Congr Ser. 2005;1280:304–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2005.02.089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Díaz Bethencourt AV, del PrietoMorales MC. Relationship between work disability and the use of the Work Ability Index. Med Segur Trab (Madr). 2016;62(242):66–78.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kaewboonchoo O, Ratanasiripong P. Psychometric properties of the Thai version of the Work Ability Index (Thai WAI). J Occup Health. 2015;57(4):371–377. https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.14-0173-OA.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Abdolalizadeh M, Arastoo AA, Ghsemzadeh R, Montazeri A, Ahmadi K, Azizi A. The psychometric properties of an Iranian Translation of the Work Ability Index (WAI) questionnaire. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(3):401–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9355-3.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Peralta N, Godoi Vasconcelos AG, Härter Griep R, Miller L. Validity and reliability of the Work Ability Index in workers of the first level of health care in Argentina. Salud Colect. 2012;8(2):163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Martinez MC, de OliveiraLatorre M, Fischer FM. Validity and reliability of the Brazilian version of the Work Ability Index. Rev Saude Publica. 2009;43(3):525–532. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102009005000017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Alexopoulos E. Work Ability Index: validation of the greek version and descriptive data in heavy industry employees. Br J Med Med Res. 2013;3(3):608–621. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJMMR/2013/2552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    López G, del Castillo N, Oramas A. Validity and reliability of the Work Ability Index (WAI) Questionnaire in its Cuban version. Rev Cuba Salud Trab. 2011;12(2):29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Williams RM, Schmuck G, Allwood S, Sanchez M, Shea R, Wark G. Psychometric evaluation of health-related work outcome measures for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(3):504–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-007-9093-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Abma FI, van der Klink JJ, Terwee CB, Amick BCI, Bültmann U. Evaluation of the measurement properties of self-reported health-related work-functioning instruments among workers with common mental disorders. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2012;38(1):5–18. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3190.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RWJG, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(4):651–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Ministerio de Salud [MINSAL], Dirección de Trabajo [DT], Instituto de Seguridad Laboral [ISL]. First National Survey of Employment, Work, Health and Quality of Life of Workers in Chile (ENETS 20092010). Santiago; 2011. https://www.dt.gob.cl/portal/1629/articles-99630_recurso_1.pdf.

  20. 20.

    DoisCastellón A, ContrerasMejias A, Arechabala MC, UrrutiaSoto MT. Validation of a Quality of Life Scale in a group of people with Schizophrenia of the Metropolitan Region-Chile. Cienc Enferm 2007;13(1). doi:10.4067/S0717-95532007000100005.

  21. 21.

    Arostegui Madariaga I, Núñez-Antón V. Statistical aspects of the Health-related Quality of Life Questionnaire Short Form-36 (SF-36). Estadística Española. 2008;50(167):147–192.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Moshagen M, Musch J. Sample size requirements of the robust weighted least squares estimator. Methodology. 2014;10(2):60–70. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 3rd ed. New York: Harper Collins; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Lorenzo-Seva U. Promin: a method for oblique factor rotation. Multivar Behav Res. 1999;34(3):347–365. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3403_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model A Multidiscip J. 1999;6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. 2015.

  28. 28.

    Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ. FACTOR 92 a comprehensive program for fitting exploratory and semiconfirmatory factor analysis and IRT models. Appl Psychol Meas. 2013;37(6):497–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621613487794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Martinez MC, de Latorre O, Fischer FM. Validity and reliability of the Brazilian version of the Work Ability Index questionnaire. Rev Saude Publica. 2009;43(3):525–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Abad FJ, Olea J, Ponsoda V, García C. Measurement in social and health sciences. Madrid: Síntesis; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Adel M, Akbar R, Ehsan G. Validity and reliability of Work Ability Index (WAI) questionnaire among Iranian workers; a study in petrochemical and car manufacturing industries. J Occup Health. 2019;61(2):165–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/1348-9585.12028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Fischer FM, Borges FN, Rotenberg L, et al. Work ability of health care shift workers: what matters? Chronobiol Int. 2006;23(6):1165–1179. https://doi.org/10.1080/07420520601065083.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    McNeish D. Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychol Methods. 2018;23(3):412–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Martus P, Jakob O, Rose U, Seibt R, Freude G. A comparative analysis of the Work Ability Index. Occup Med (Chic Ill). 2010;60(7):517–524. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqq093.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Trizano-Hermosilla I, Alvarado JM. Best alternatives to Cronbach’s alpha reliability in realistic conditions: congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Front Psychol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Mancebo GR, López Pumar GM, Marrero Santos MDL. Test-retest reliability of the questionnaire ‘Work Ability Index’ in hospital service health workers in Arroyo Naranjo, Havana. Rev Cuba Salud Trab. 2013;14(2):45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr. Leticia Miller and Norma Peralta of the Republic of Argentina for having facilitated the Work Ability Index in its Spanish version. The Risk Prevention units of the Hospital Dr. Hernán Henríquez Aravena (Eng. Nataly Martínez and her work group) and the Universidad de La Frontera (Eng. Katipza Yaksic and her work group). The Dirección de Investigación of Universidad de La Frontera (DIUFRO) project number SSS17-0001. Students in the Physiotherapy program at the Universidad de La Frontera for their help in data collection: Bastián Sáez, Mauricio Salazar, Sofía Tapia and María José Uribe. Camila Salazar and Andrés Concha for their review of the manuscript. Thanks to Dr. Helen M. Lowry for proofreading the article.

Funding

This study was financed by the Chilean Institute for Safety in the Workplace (IST) (ID#9, “Capacidad de trabajo y pruebas funcionales en adultos mayores chilenos laboralmente activos”, 2017–2020).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriel Nasri Marzuca-Nassr.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Claudio Bascour-Sandoval, Francisco Soto-Rodríguez, Claudio Muñoz-Poblete and Gabriel Nasri Marzuca-Nassr declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval

The study was conducted under the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki [38]. Thus, it had the approval of the Ethics Committee of the Universidad de La Frontera (ACTA N°013_18) and the South Araucanía Health Service (0000004 19.01.2018).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bascour-Sandoval, C., Soto-Rodríguez, F., Muñoz-Poblete, C. et al. Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Version of the Work Ability Index in Working Individuals. J Occup Rehabil 30, 288–297 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-019-09871-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Workers
  • Psychometric properties
  • Work Ability Index
  • Reliability
  • Validity