Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Rehabilitation Research and Practice
Volume 2013, Article ID 614825, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/614825
Research Article

Content Analysis of Work Limitation, Stanford Presenteeism, and Work Instability Questionnaires Using International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health and Item Perspective Framework

1University of Western Ontario, Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, 1201 Western Road, London, ON, Canada N6G 1H1
2Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, School of Rehabilitation Science, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L8
3Clinical Research, Hand and Upper Limb Center, St. Joseph’s Hospital, 268 Grosvenor Street, London, ON, Canada N6A 4L6

Received 22 July 2013; Revised 31 October 2013; Accepted 4 November 2013

Academic Editor: Jari P. A. Arokoski

Copyright © 2013 Vanitha Arumugam et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background. Presenteeism refers to reduced performance or productivity while at work due to health reasons. WLQ-26, SPS-6, and RA-WIS are the commonly used self-report presenteeism questionnaires. These questionnaires have acceptable psychometric properties but have not been subject to structured content analysis that would define their conceptual basis. Objective. To describe the conceptual basis of the three questionnaires using ICF and IPF and then compare the distribution and content of codes to those on the vocational rehabilitation core set. Methods. Two researchers independently linked the items of the WLQ-26, SPS-6, and RA-WIS to the ICF and IPF following the established linking rules. The percentage agreement on coding was calculated between the researchers. Results. WLQ-26 was linked to 62 ICF codes, SPS-6 was linked to 17 ICF codes, and RA-WIS was linked to 74 ICF codes. Most of these codes belonged to the activity and participation domains. All the concepts were classified by the IPF, and the most were rational appraisals within the social domain. Only 12% of codes of the core set for vocational rehabilitation were used in this study to code these questionnaires. Conclusion. The specific nature of work disability that was included in these three questionnaires was difficult to explain using ICF since many aspects of content were not confined. The core set for vocational rehabilitation covered very limited content of the WLQ-26, SPS-6, and RA-WIS.