Erratum to: J Occup Rehabil (2012) 22(1):51–58 DOI 10.1007/s10926-011-9320-6
In the above-mentioned article, the efficiency rates in Table 2 are wrong. The correct efficiency rates should be:
| PHQ-15 ≥ 6 | PHQ-15 ≥ 7 | PHQ-15 ≥ 8 | PHQ-15 ≥ 9 | PHQ-15 ≥ 10 | PHQ-15 ≥ 11 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 36.5 % | 44.9 % | 53.3 % | 59.8 % | 65.4 % | 69.2 % |
On p. 55, the efficiency rate in “Efficiency was 74.8 %, the highest value for all possible cut points” is incorrect. It should be replaced by: “Efficiency was 69.2 %, the highest value for all possible cut points.”
On p. 55, the efficiency rate in “At cut point 9, efficiency was 57.9 %” is incorrect. It should be replaced by: “At cut point 9, efficiency was 59.8 %.”
On p. 56, the efficiency rate in “Maximum specificity (78.6 %), and efficiency (74.8 %),….” is incorrect. It should be replaced by: “Maximum specificity (78.6 %), and efficiency (69.2 %), …”.
Footnotes
The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1007/s10926-011-9320-6.