MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010694476 · doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.702849

Internal consistency and construct validity of the Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire adapted for work disability following a musculoskeletal disorder

2012· article· en· W2010694476 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Valérie Albert, Marie‐France Coutu, Marie‐José Durand

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersInstitut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail
KeywordsConstruct validityVisual analogue scaleCronbach's alphaPsychologyPhysical therapyScale (ratio)Clinical psychologyExplained variationDistressSick leaveExternal validityPsychometricsMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To assess internal consistency and construct validity of the French version of the Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire adapted for Work Disability (IPQR-WD). Method: A cross sectional study was conducted in rehabilitation centers and private clinics in the Montreal region of Canada, involving 43 men and women, French speaking, absent from work between 3 months and a year due to musculoskeletal disorders. The 9 dimension IPQR-WD and the following eight-related instruments for construct validity were administered: Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Psychological Distress Index (PDI-14), Pain Disability Index (PDI), Self-Efficacy for Return to Work Scale (SERWS), Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory (PBPI), Implicit Models of Illness Questionnaire (IMIQ) and a Visual Analog Scale for pain intensity (VAS). Results: Calculations of Cronbach’s α (from 0.58 to 0.87) revealed satisfactory internal consistency of the IPQR-WD dimensions. Multiple regression analyses were performed with each IPQR-WD dimension and significant independent variables. Final models explained a good proportion of the variance (adjusted r2 = 0.33–0.70) for each dimension, except for the Cyclical timeline dimension for which associations became non-significant after adjusting for gender, age and length of sick leave. The SERWS and the VAS were not significantly associated to any of the IPQR-WD dimensions. Conclusions: Moderate to strong correlations were found with six-related instruments which support the multidimensional nature of the IPQR-WD and its unique contribution as one simple questionnaire that can assess representations related to work disability.Implications for RehabilitationCertain unhelpful beliefs related to the worker’s own understanding (i.e. representation) of his/her current health condition may lead to behaviours that are poorly adapted to reducing the work disability following a musculoskeletal disorder.The Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire adapted for Work Disability (IPQR-WD) is the only questionnaire available in French that can specifically assess the worker’s representation following a musculoskeletal disorder.The use of this questionnaire will facilitate a systematic evaluation of the worker’s representation according to a biopsychosocial approach, which may contribute to a clinical practice based on the latest scientific evidences available in the work disability field.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207