Psychometric testing of the British‐English Perceived Workplace Support Scale, Work Accommodations, Benefits, Policies and Practices Scale, and Work Transitions Index in four rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The aims were to validate linguistically British‐English versions of the Perceived Workplace Support Scale (PWSS), Work Accommodations, Benefits, Policies and Practices Scale (WABPPS), and Work Transitions Index (WTI) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), osteoarthritis (OA) and fibromyalgia (FM). Methods The three scales were adapted into British‐English and reviewed by an expert panel prior to cognitive debriefing interviews. Participants completed postal questionnaires. Construct validity for the PWSS was assessed using Rasch analysis. Concurrent validity included testing between the three scales and work, job strain and work‐life balance scales. Two weeks later, participants were mailed a second questionnaire to measure test‐retest reliability. Results The questionnaire was completed by 831 employed participants: 68% women, 53.50 (SD 8.9) years of age, with condition duration 7.70 (SD 8.00) years. The PWSS satisfied Rasch model requirements. Concurrent validity was mostly as hypothesised, that is, weak to moderate negative correlations for the PWSS ( r s = 0.07 to −0.61), and weak to moderate positive correlations for the WABPPS and WTI ( r s = 0.20–0.52). Some correlations were stronger, mostly in axSpA. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) for all three scales was consistent with group use in all conditions. Test‐retest reliability was generally excellent, with intraclass coefficients (2,1) of 0.80–0.93 for the three scales in the four conditions. Discussion Reliable, valid versions of the British‐English PWSS, WABPPS, and WTI are now available for use in research, organisational level studies and vocational rehabilitation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".