MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133405574 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20090274

Validity and Responsiveness of Presenteeism Scales in Chronic Work-Related Upper-Extremity Disorders

2011· article· en· W2133405574 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jean‐Sébastien Roy, Joy C. MacDermid, Benjamin C. Amick, Harry S. Shannon, Robert Y. McMurtry, James H. Roth, Ruby Grewal, Kenneth Tang, Dorcas Beaton

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CentreSt. Michael's HospitalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationInstitute for Work & HealthJewish Rehabilitation Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPhysical therapyPresenteeismMedicineRating scaleConvergent validityConstruct validityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyPsychometricsClinical psychologyAbsenteeism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Work Limitations Questionnaire-25 (WLQ-25) and the Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA-WIS) have been used to measure at-work disability related to musculoskeletal disorders. However, a recent systematic review has shown that important psychometric properties still needed to be evaluated. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish the validity and responsiveness of the WLQ-25 and RA-WIS in people with chronic work-related upper-extremity disorders. DESIGN: Two-hundred six participants with chronic upper-extremity disorders who attended a specialty clinic operated by the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board of Ontario were evaluated at their initial visit and 6 months later. METHODS: Questionnaires completed at each evaluation were: the WLQ-25, the RA-WIS, the QuickDASH, the pain subscale of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Questionnaire, and the Chronic Pain Grade Questionnaire. At the 6-month evaluation, participants completed a global rating of change question. Known-group and construct convergent validity were assessed using analysis of variance and Pearson correlations, and standardized response means (SRMs) were used to assess responsiveness. Clinically important differences (CIDs) also were determined. RESULTS: The WLQ-25 and RA-WIS had low to moderate correlations with pain and disability scales (.28<r<.62) and discriminated among different functional categories (P<.001). For improved participants, the WLQ-25 (SRM=0.65 for summed score, SRM=0.63 for index score) and the RA-WIS (SRM=0.66) demonstrated moderate responsiveness. The CID for improvement was estimated to be 13/100 points for the WLQ-25 summed score, 5/28.6 points for the WLQ-25 index score, and 4/23 points for the RA-WIS. LIMITATIONS: The external criterion of change was specific to change in upper-extremity condition and not to change in work ability or productivity. CONCLUSIONS: The WLQ-25 and RA-WIS provide different information from that provided by pain and disability measures. They discriminate among functional outcome subgroups and detect improvement over time in people with chronic work-related upper-extremity disorders.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations51
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207