Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development and Testing of an ICF-Based Questionnaire to Evaluate Functioning in Vocational Rehabilitation: The Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Vocational Rehabilitation and Disability Evaluation

Part of the book series: Handbooks in Health, Work, and Disability ((SHHDW))

Abstract

This chapter will introduce the reader to an example on how an assessment instrument, based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health can be developed. It lines out the reasoning behind the development of the new instrument as well as the methodology that was used. The instrument is a questionnaire designed to evaluate functioning in vocational rehabilitation – the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ).

In a further step the strengths and weaknesses of a generic instrument as the WORQ and the need for disease-specific or symptom-specific instruments and their respective roles in the vocational rehabilitation process will be discussed.

In this context we also reflect on the role of environmental and personal factors when evaluating functioning in vocational rehabilitation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. OECD High-Level Forum. Sickness, disability and work; keeping on track in the economic downturn. Background paper, Stockholm; 14–15 May 2009. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/15/42699911.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2013.

  2. De Boer WE, Besseling JJ, Willems JH. Organisation of disability evaluation in 15 countries. Prat et Organ des Soins. 2007;38(3):205–17.

    Google Scholar 

  3. OECD, editor. Sickness, disability and work: breaking the barriers. Paris: OECD; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Suva (Swiss accident insurance), editor. Medizinische Mitteilungen, Nr.79. Luzern: Suva; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Marnetoft SU, Selander J, Bergroth A, Ekholm J. Factors associated with successful vocational rehabilitation in a Swedish rural area. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33(2):71–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kapiriri L, Norheim FO, Martin DK. Priority setting at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels in Canada. Norway and Uganda. Health Policy. 2007;82(1):78–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Coutu MF, Legare F, Durand MJ, Corbiere M, Stacey D, Loisel P, et al. Fostering shared decision making by occupational therapists and workers involved in accidents resulting in persistent musculoskeletal disorders: a study protocol. Implement Sci. 2011;6:22-5908-6-22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. van der Weide WE, Verbeek JH, van Dijk FJ, Doef J. An audit of occupational health care for employees with low-back pain. Occup Med (Lond). 1997;47(5):294–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brunarski D, Shaw L, Doupe L. Moving toward virtual interdisciplinary teams and a multi-stakeholder approach in community-based return-to-work care. Work. 2008;30(3):329–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Guzman J, Esmail R, Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, Irvin E, Bombardier C. Multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation for chronic low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;1(1):CD000963.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoving JL, Broekhuizen ML, Frings-Dresen MH. Return to work of breast cancer survivors: a systematic review of intervention studies. BMC Cancer. 2009;9:117.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kissinger DB. Traumatic brain injury and employment outcomes: integration of the working alliance model. Work. 2008;31(3):309–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ware JE. SF-36 health survey. Manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Beck AT, Steer R, Brown G. Manual for the Beck depression inventory-II. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66(8):271–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Finger ME, Escorpizo R, Glassel A, Gmunder HP, Luckenkemper M, Chan C, et al. ICF Core Set for vocational rehabilitation: results of an international consensus conference. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(5):429–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Escorpizo R, Finger ME, Glassel A, Cieza A. An international expert survey on functioning in vocational rehabilitation using the international classification of functioning, disability and health. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(2):147–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Finger ME, Glassel A, Erhart P, Gradinger F, Klipstein A, Rivier G, et al. Identification of relevant ICF categories in vocational rehabilitation: a cross sectional study evaluating the clinical perspective. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(2):156–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Saltychev M, Kinnunen A, Laimi K. Vocational rehabilitation evaluation and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(1):106–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. World Health Organization (WHO), editor. How to use ICF: a practical manual for using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Exposure draft for comment. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Selb M, Escorpizo R, Kostanjsek N, Stucki G, Üstün B, Cieza A. A guide on how to develop an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2014. [Epub ahead of print] April 1.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cieza A, Oberhauser C, Bickenbach J, Chatterji S, Stucki G. Towards a minimal generic set of domains of functioning and health. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2014;14(1):218.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Stucki G, Cieza A, Ewert T, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Ustun TB. Application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in clinical practice. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(5):281–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Okochi J, Utsunomiya S, Takahashi T. Health measurement using the ICF: test-retest reliability study of ICF codes and qualifiers in geriatric care. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:46.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jette AM, Norweg A, Haley SM. Achieving meaningful measurements of ICF concepts. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(12–13):963–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rentsch HP, Bucher P, Dommen Nyffeler I, Wolf C, Hefti H, Fluri E, et al. The implementation of the ‘International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health’ (ICF) in daily practice of neurorehabilitation: an interdisciplinary project at the Kantonsspital of Lucerne. Switz Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(8):411–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hollenweger J. Developing applications of the ICF in education systems: addressing issues of knowledge creation, management and transfer. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35(13):1087–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jacob T. The implementation of the ICF among Israeli rehabilitation centers – the case of physical therapy. Physiother Theory Pract. 2013;29(7):536–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Glassel A, Rauch A, Selb M, Emmenegger K, Luckenkemper M, Escorpizo R. A case study on the application of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)-based tools for vocational rehabilitation in spinal cord injury. Work. 2012;41(4):465–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rauch A, Cieza A, Stucki G. How to apply the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) for rehabilitation management in clinical practice. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2008;44(3):329–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Finger M, Selb M, Escorpizo R. Using ICF in physiotherapy in multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation: a case study of low back pain. Physiother Res Int. 2014. [Epub ahead of print] April 15.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Finch E, Brooks D, Stratford PW, Mayo NE. Physical rehabilitation outcome measures: a guide to enhanced clinical decision making. 2nd ed. Hamilton: BC Decker; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Krosnick JA, Presser S. Question and questionnaire design. In: Marsden PV, Wright JD, editors. Handbook of survey research. 2nd ed. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2010. p. 263–313.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Linacre J. Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Meas Trans. 1994;7:328.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Linacre JM. Sample size and item calibration [or person measure] stability. Available at: www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt74m.htm. Accessed 28 Mar 2013.

  37. Lydell M, Grahn B, Mansson J, Baigi A, Marklund B. Predictive factors of sustained return to work for persons with musculoskeletal disorders who participated in rehabilitation. Work. 2009;33(3):317–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Soer R, van der Schans CP, Geertzen JH, Groothoff JW, Brouwer S, Dijkstra PU, et al. Normative values for a functional capacity evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(10):1785–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Leung W. How to design a questionnaire. Stud Br Med J. 2001;9:187–9.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Üstün TB, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Rehm J, editors. Measuring health and disability: manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  41. World Health Organization. World Health Survey instruments and related documents: long version: individual questionnaire. Available at: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/whslonghouseholdhigh.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2012.

  42. Wewers ME, Lowe NK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health. 1990;13(4):227–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, et al. Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2011;41(6):1073–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Forrest M, Andersen B. Ordinal scale and statistics in medical research. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986;292(6519):537–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Kersten P, Kucukdeveci AA, Tennant A. The use of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in rehabilitation outcomes. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(7):609–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. The WHOQOL Group. Development of the WHOQoL: rationale and current status. Int J Ment Health. 1994;23:24–56.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Finger M, Escorpizo R, Bostan C, De Bie R. Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ): development and preliminary psychometric evidence of an ICF-based questionnaire for vocational rehabilitation. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;24(3):498–510.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Sangha O, Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Katz JN. The Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire: a new method to assess comorbidity for clinical and health services research. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;49(2):156–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. London: Sage; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hinkle D, Wiersma W, Jurs S, editors. Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  53. George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference. 11.0 update. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Bickenbach J, Cieza A, Selb M, Emmenegger K, Lückenkemper M, Escorpizo R, editors. ICF core sets: manual for clinical practice. 1st ed. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Linder J, Ekholm KS, Jansen G, Lundh G, Ekholm J. Long-term sick leavers with difficulty in resuming work: comparisons between psychiatric-somatic comorbidity and monodiagnosis. Int J Rehabil Res. 2009;32(1):20–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Official Social Security Website, USA. Code of federal regulations § 404.1567. Physical exertiooon requirements. Available at: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-1567.htm. Accessed 20 Jan 2014.

  57. Le Pen C, Levy E, Loos F, Banzet MN, Basdevant A. “Specific” scale compared with “generic” scale: a double measurement of the quality of life in a French community sample of obese subjects. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(7):445–50.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Streibelt M, Egner U. A systematic review of the predictors of return to work following vocational retraining. Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2013;52(2):111–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Bergström G, Hagberg J, Busch H, Jensen I, Björklund C. Prediction of sickness absenteeism, disability pension and sickness presenteeism among employees with back pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2013. doi:10.1007/s10926-013-9454-9.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Zoer I, de Graaf L, Kuijer PP, Prinzie P, Hoozemans MJ, Frings-Dresen MH. Matching work capacities and demands at job placement in employees with disabilities. Work. 2012;42(2):205–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Vocational Rehabilitation Task Group, Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, Waddell G, Burton AK, Kendall NA. Vocational rehabilitation – what works, for whom, and when? 1st ed. London: TSO (The Stationery Office); 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Iles RA, Davidson M, Taylor NF. Psychosocial predictors of failure to return to work in non-chronic non-specific low back pain: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med. 2008;65(8):507–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Nicholas MK, Linton SJ, Watson PJ, Main CJ, “Decade of the Flags” Working Group. Early identification and management of psychological risk factors (“yellow flags”) in patients with low back pain: a reappraisal. Phys Ther. 2011;91(5):737–53.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ICF Unit, Swiss Paraplegic Research, Guido-Zäch-Strasse 4, 6207, Nottwil, Switzerland

    Monika Elisabeth Finger & Reuben Escorpizo

  2. ICF Research Branch, WHO CC FIC in Germany (DIMDI), Nottwil, Switzerland

    Monika Elisabeth Finger & Reuben Escorpizo

  3. Caphri Research School, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Monika Elisabeth Finger

  4. Department of Epidemiology and Institute for Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Robert De Bie

  5. Institute and Outpatient Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Clinical Center, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany

    Dennis Nowak

  6. Department of Rehabilitation and Movement Science, The University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

    Reuben Escorpizo

Authors
  1. Monika Elisabeth Finger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert De Bie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dennis Nowak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Reuben Escorpizo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monika Elisabeth Finger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rehabilitation and Movement Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA

    Reuben Escorpizo

  2. Research Unit, Directorate for Labour and Welfare, Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Sören Brage

  3. Department of Rehabilitation and Counsel, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, Wisconsin, USA

    Debra Homa

  4. Department of Health Sciences and Health Policy, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Luzern, Switzerland

    Gerold Stucki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Finger, M.E., De Bie, R., Nowak, D., Escorpizo, R. (2015). Development and Testing of an ICF-Based Questionnaire to Evaluate Functioning in Vocational Rehabilitation: The Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ). In: Escorpizo, R., Brage, S., Homa, D., Stucki, G. (eds) Handbook of Vocational Rehabilitation and Disability Evaluation. Handbooks in Health, Work, and Disability. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08825-9_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08825-9_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08824-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08825-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation