Appendix 3.D: Measurement Tool Information Sheets

Description:

Job strain is assessed by two factors (14 items) in the Job Content Questionnaire. Job strain occurs when psychological demands are high and the degree of decision latitude is low.

Scientific criteria (score: 5/6):

Face validity √; Construct validity by factor analyses √; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.

Usability criteria (score: 2/4):

Administration time Ø; Ease of administration √; Ease of interpretation Ø; Accessibility Ø.

Note: The full questionnaire is available. It should be requested from the JCQ Center in Denmark by phone (+45 40461000) or email (jcqcenter@oresundsynergy.com). Access is free of charge in the vast majority of cases, but costs may be charged for research and commercial projects

• Target users: researchers and health professionals
• Target population: MSDs and CMDs
  Language: 22 languages, including French (Canadian version) and English
• Evaluation method: self-reported questionnaire
  Mode of administration: telephone or face-to-face
• Training required: no
• Feasibility
  • Administration time: < 7 min
  • Ease: no (complex mathematical formulas, reversed items, and information on interpretation standards not available)
• Standards for interpreting scores:
  • Interpretation standards are given with the questionnaire once the application is accepted.

Description:

Questionnaire consisting of 55 items divided into three sections. To assess the risk factor, RTW expectations, only the third section with 6 items is used. Some of the items were taken from the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire

Scientific criteria (score: 6/6):

Face validity √; Construct validity by factor analyses √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.

Usability criteria (score: 3/4):

Administration time √; Ease of administration √; Ease of interpretation Ø; Accessibility √.

The questionnaire items are available in the article by Marhold et al (2002), or by downloading the questionnaire (top of the table) presented in a more user-friendly format.

Here are some examples, among the 6 items in question:

• How much chance do you think there is that you could return-to-work/increase your work time?
• How do you feel when you think about your possibilities for returning to work/increasing your

• work time?

7-point Likert scales with different terms to represent extreme scores:

• No chance … Very big chance
• Not at all difficult … Very difficult
• Not at all convinced … Completely convinced
• Not at all optimistic … Very optimistic

Score calculation:

• Add up the scores, leading to a total score ranging from 0 to 36 points.

• Target users: researchers and health professionals
• Target population: MSDs
• Language: English, Swedish (translated into French by the research team)
• Evaluation method: self-reported questionnaire
• Mode of administration: by telephone or face to face
• Training required for the administration of the tool: no
• Feasibility
  • Administration time: < 3 min.
  • Ease of use: yes
• Standards for interpreting scores:
  • Not available.

Description:

The factor RTW expectations or Expectation of duration of sick leave can be assessed with the Work related recovery expectation questionnaire, consisting of three items.

Scientific criteria (score: 3/6): :

Face validity √; Construct validity by factor analyses Ø; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.

Usability criteria (score: 3/4):

Administration time √; Ease of administration √; Ease of interpretation Ø; Accessibility √.

The different items of the questionnaire are available in the article by Gross and Battié (2005 b) and in the appendix of Gross and Battié (2005a), or by downloading the questionnaire (top of the table) presented in a more user-friendly format.

Here are the 3 items:

1. I believe I am physically capable of returning to my usual work activities.
2. I believe my symptoms would become worse if I were to return to my usual work activities now.
3. I believe that my injury will interfere with my ability to do my usual work activities in the future.

5-point Likert scale:

• 1. Strongly disagree .
  ..
• 5. Strongly agree

Score calculation:

• Each individual score is added up, taking into account the first item which is reversed.

• Target users: researchers and health professionals
• Target population: MSDs
• Language: English (translated into French by the research team)
• Evaluation method: self-reported questionnaire
• Mode of administration: not specified
• Training required for the administration of the tool: no
• Feasibility
  • Administration time: < 2 min
  • Ease of use: yes
• Standards for interpreting scores:
  Little information on interpretation of scores; lower scores represent more positive expectations.

Description:

The factor RTW expectations or Expectation of duration of sick leave can be measured by two independent questions, at the user’s option, depending on what is being predicted (return to work or duration of absence).

Scientific criteria (score: 2/6):

Face validity √; Construct validity by factor analyses Ø; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency Ø; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.

Usability criteria (Score: 4/4):

Administration time √; Ease of administration √; Ease of interpretation √; Accessibility √.

For return to work prediction:
To what extent do you think you will return to work?

Scale: 1. Low; 2. Moderate; 3. Strong; 4. I don’t know.

For predicting the duration of sick leave:
When do you think you are likely to return to work?

Scale: 1 point = within 1 month; …12 points = within 12 months or more.

Score calculation: Single score for each question

Both questions are available by downloading the questionnaire (top of the table) in a more user-friendly format

• Target users: researchers and health professionals
• Target population: MSDs and CMDs
• Language: English (translated into French by the research team)
• Evaluation method: self-reported questionnaire
• Mode of administration: not specified
• Training required for the administration of the tool: no
• Feasibility
  • Administration time: < 1 min.
  • Ease of use: yes
• Standards for interpreting scores:
  Not available

Description :

Le facteur Sentiment d’efficacité concernant le retour au travail peut être évalué avec le questionnaire « Return-to-Work Self-Efficacy Scale ». Il est composé de 10 points mesurant le sentiment d’efficacité lors du retour au travail sous trois angles : 5 points évaluant la capacité à demander de l’aide du superviseur, 3 points évaluant la gestion la douleur et 2 points évaluant la capacité à demander de l’aide aux collègues.

Critères scientifiques (score : 6/6) :

Validité apparente √; Validité de construit par analyses factorielles √; Validité convergente √; Cohérence interne √; Fidélité test-retest Ø; Validité prédictive √.

Critères d’applicabilité (score : 3/4) :

Temps de passation Ø; Facilité à administrer √; Facilité à interpréter √; Accessibilité √.

Le questionnaire complet est accessible dans Brouwer, Amick, Lee, Franche et Hogg-Johnson (2015) ou en téléchargeant le questionnaire (haut du tableau) présenté dans un format plus convivial.

Voici quelques exemples tirés des 10 points en question :

• Suggérer à mon supérieur immédiat des mesures pour réduire mes symptômes.
• Demeurer en poste après être retourné au travail.
• Faire part de mes limitations physiques à mes collègues de travail.

Échelle de Likert en 5 points :

• Sur une échelle de 1 à 5, quel est votre niveau de confiance à l’égard de chacun des énoncés suivants ?
  • 1. Pas du tout confiant
  • 5. Tout à fait confiant

Calcul du score :

• Faire la somme des scores des 10 points, donnant un score total allant de 10 à 50.

• Utilisateurs cibles : chercheurs et professionnels de la santé

• Population cible : TMS
• Langue : anglais (traduit en français par l’équipe de recherche)

• Mode d’évaluation : questionnaire auto-rapporté
• Mode d’administration : par téléphone ou en face à face

• Formation requise pour l’administration de l’outil : non

• Faisabilité
  • Temps de passation : < 4 min.
  • Facilité : oui

• Normes pour interpréter les scores : un score plus haut indique un meilleur sentiment d’efficacité.

Description:

The return-to-work self-efficacy factor can be evaluated with the “Self-efficacy for return to work questionnaire. It includes 8 items measuring the worker’s perception of his ability to perform his work despite specific obstacles (e.g. pain, lack of support from colleagues).

Scientific criteria (score: 4/6):

Face validity √; Construct validity by factor analyses Ø; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.

Usability criteria ( score: 4/4):

Administration time √; Ease of administration √; Ease of interpretation √; Accessibility √.

The full questionnaire is available in the article or by downloading the questionnaire (top of the table) presented in a more user-friendly format. Here are a few examples from the 8 items:

How confident are you to do your job …

1. … when you have a lot of pain?

6. … when tension is present at work?
7. … when you must work under pressure?

Percentage scale from 0 to 100 :

• 0% = Not at all confident, 50% = Moderately confident and 100% = Totally confident.

Score calculation:

Several methods can be used:

• 0-100 dichotomized 0-49 vs 50-100 (Dionne et al., 2007)
• Separate into units of 10 continuous points (Dionne et al., 2007)

The total score is 0-800, but it is divided by 8 to get a score ranging from 0-100 (Richard, Dionne, & Nouwen, 2011

• Target users: researchers and health professionals
• Target population: MSD (back pain)
• Language: French and English
• Evaluation method: self-reported questionnaire
• Mode of administration: by telephone or face to face
• Training required for the administration of the tool: no
• Feasibility
  • Administration time: < 3 min.
• Ease of use: yes
• Standards for interpreting scores:
  • 0-49: low self-efficacy regarding return to work (Dionne et al., 2007)
  • 50-100: high self-efficacy regarding return to work (Dionne et al., 2007)

A higher score indicates a higher self-efficacy regarding return to work (Richard et al., 2011).

Description:

The Return-to-work self-efficacy factor can be assessed with the Return-to-work self-efficacy questionnaire.

Scientific criteria (score: 6/6):

Face validity √; Construct validity by factor analyses √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.

Usability Criteria (Score: 2/4):

Administration time Ø; Ease of administration √; Ease of interpretation Ø; Accessibility √.a

The full questionnaire is available in the article Lagerveld, Blonk, Brenninjmeijer and Schaufeli (2010), or by downloading the questionnaire (top of the table) presented in a more user-friendly format. Here are some examples of the 11 items:

If I resumed my work fully tomorrow I expect that…

• I won’t be able to complete my work tasks due to my emotional state*.
• I will be able to concentrate on my work.
• I will be able to cope with work pressure.

*inverted items

Scale:

1 Strongly disagree;
2 Moderately disagree;
3 Slightly disagree;
4 Slightly agree;
5 Moderately agree;
6 Strongly agree.

Calculation of the score: add up the scores, considering the reversed items, then divide by 11 to get the average

• Target users: researchers and health professionals
• Target population: CMDs
• Language: English (translated into French by the research team)
• Evaluation method: self-reported questionnaire
• Mode of administration: by telephone or face to face
• Training required for the administration of the tool: no
• Feasibility
  • Administration time: ˂ 4 min.
  • Ease: yes, but be careful with the calculation of the score (reversed items)
• Standards for interpreting scores:
  • An average score of 4.5 indicates a high level of self-efficacy.

Description:

The Return-to-work self-efficacy factor can be evaluated with the Return-to-Work Obstacles and Self-Efficacy Scale (46 items). This questionnaire aims to evaluate the obstacles perceived during the return to work (Part A) and how the worker feels able to overcome them (Part B).

Scientific Criteria (Score: 5/6):

Face validity √; Construct validity by factor analyses √; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.

Usability Criteria (Score: 2/4):

Administration time Ø; Ease of administration Ø; Ease of interpretation √; Accessibility √.

The complete questionnaire is available at http://www.mentalhealthwork.ca/

• Go to YOUR WEB SPACE > STAKEHOLDERS and log in
• If you don’t have an account, register for free

The 46 items cover 10 dimensions: (1) fear of a relapse (4 items), (2) cognitive difficulties (3 items), (3) medication-related difficulties (3 items), (4) job demands (7 items), (5) feeling of organizational injustice (4 items), (6) difficult relation with the immediate supervisor (7 items), (7) difficult relations with co-workers (7 items), (8) difficult relations with insurance company (4 items), (9) difficult work/life balance (4 items), (10) loss of motivation to return to work (3 items).

Part A (Perceived obstacles to RTW): Likert scale: 1= Not an obstacle to 7= Big obstacle.

Part B (Self-efficacy beliefs about overcoming them): Likert scale: 1= Not at all capable to to 7= Completely capable.

Calculation of the scores: Remember that if we want to calculate the self-efficacy score (Part B), we must only consider the answers in Part B. The average score for each of the 10 dimensions is calculated by summing the scores for the items in the dimension ÷ by the number of items in that same dimension, which gives a score ranging from 1 to 7.

• Target users: Researchers and health professionals
• Target population: One version is available for MSDs and another for CMDs
• Language: French, English, Italian
• Evaluation method: Self-reported questionnaire
• Mode of administration: Telephone, face-to-face, online
• Training required for the administration of the tool: no
• Feasibility
  • Administration time: 20 min.
  • Ease of use: yes
• Standards for interpreting scores:

score of 3 or less (over 7) = considered problematic