Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Occupational Health logoLink to Journal of Occupational Health
. 2015 Dec 25;57(6):521–531. doi: 10.1539/joh.15-0135-OA

Development and validity of a work functioning impairment scale based on the Rasch model among Japanese workers

Yoshihisa Fujino 1,✉, Masamichi Uehara 2, Hiroyuki Izumi 3, Tomohisa Nagata 4, Keiji Muramatsu 1, Tatsuhiko Kubo 1, Ichiro Oyama 5, Shinya Matsuda 1
PMCID: PMC6706181  PMID: 26345178

Abstract

Development and validity of a work functioning impairment scale based on the Rasch model among Japanese workers: Yoshihisa Fujino, et al. Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan

Objective

The purpose of this study was to develop a new work functioning impairment scale (WFun) and examine its validity.

Methods

The WFun was developed based on the Rasch model, which consists of seven items. We conducted a pilot study (n=1,000) using an Internet investigation and a field study (n=1,294) in a manufacturing industry, and we additionally collected data from six workplaces from other industries. This series of studies was examined with a Rasch model analyses including item fit statistics as well as hypothesis testing. Convergent validity was used to examined the association of the WFun with the Stanford Presenteeism Scale, SF‐8, Work Ability Index, and several types of job disruptions. We also examined differential test functioning.

Results

All the items showed adequate fit (infit mean‐square statistics <1.5). The item reliability was 0.98, and the item separation index was 6.37. The person reliability was 0.86, and the person separation index was 2.32. All tests for convergent validity showed significant differences. All p values derived from ANOVA were highly significant (p<0.001). No differential test function was observed between groups by age, sex, or job type or between various samples from different workplaces. The intraclass correlation of the estimated Rasch measurements from these groups was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.976−0.992).

Conclusions

The WFun was confirmed to show good fit to a Rasch model and construct validity. Given that its good fit indicates specific objectivity, this tool will be useful in assessing the ability of individuals to function at work and in evaluating group levels for benchmarking.

Keywords: Occupational health, Patient‐reported outcome, Presenteeism, Quality of life, Rasch model, Work limitations

Supporting information

Supplementary Material

Click here for additional data file. (174.7KB, pdf)

References

  • 1. Aronsson G, Gustafsson K, Dallner M. Sick but yet at work. An empirical study of sickness presenteeism. J Epidemiol Community Health 2000; 54: 502–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Dew K, Keefe V, Small K. ‘Choosing’ to work when sick: workplace presenteeism. Soc Sci Med 2005; 60: 2273–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Collins JJ, Baase CM, Sharda CE, et al. The assessment of chronic health conditions on work performance, absence, and total economic impact for employers. J Occup Environ Med 2005; 47: 547–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Loeppke R, Taitel M, Richling D, et al. Health and productivity as a business strategy. J Occup Environ Med 2007; 49: 712–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Evans CJ. Health and work productivity assessment: State of the art or state of flux? J Occup Environ Med 2004; 46: S3–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Burton WN, Morrison A, Wertheimer AI. Pharmaceuticals and worker productivity loss: a critical review of the literature. J Occup Environ Med 2003; 45: 610–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Brooks A, Hagen SE, Sathyanarayanan S, Schultz AB, Edington DW. Presenteeism: critical issues. J Occup Environ Med 2010; 52: 1055–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Koopman C, Pelletier KR, Murray JF, et al. Stanford presenteeism scale: health status and employee productivity. J Occup Environ Med 2002; 44: 14–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Loeppke R, Hymel PA, Lofland JH, et al. Health‐related workplace productivity measurement: general and migraine‐specific recommendations from the ACOEM Expert Panel. J Occup Environ Med 2003; 45: 349–59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Kessler RC, Barber C, Beck A, et al. The world health organization health and work performance questionnaire (HPQ). J Occup Environ Med 2003; 45: 156–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Lerner D, Amick BC, 3rd, Lee JC, et al. Relationship of employee‐reported work limitations to work productivity. Med Care 2003; 41: 649–59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Waddell G, Burton AK, Great Britain . Department for Work and Pensions Is work good for your health and wellbeing? London: TSO; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health‐related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA 1995; 273: 59–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 2000; 38: Ii28–42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. Protocol of the COSMIN study: consensus‐based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Edwards JR, Bagozzi RP. On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychol Methods 2000; 5: 155–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Gignac MA, Cao X, Lacaille D, Anis AH, Badley EM. Arthritis‐related work transitions: a prospective analysis of reported productivity losses, work changes, and leaving the labor force. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59: 1805–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Ospina MB, Dennett L, Waye A, Jacobs P, Thompson AH. A systematic review of measurement properties of instruments assessing presenteeism. Am J Manag Care 2015; 21: e171–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Noben CY, Evers SM, Nijhuis FJ, de Rijk AE. Quality appraisal of generic self‐reported instruments measuring health‐related productivity changes: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 201414115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 21. Yamashita M, Arakida M. Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale in female employees at 2 Japanese enterprises. J Occup Health 2008; 50: 66–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Ware J, Kosinski M, Dewey J, Gandek B. How to Score and Interpret Single‐Item Health Status Measures: A Manual for Users of the SF‐8 Health Survey. Boston (MA): QualityMetric Incorporated, Lincoln RI; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Fukuhara S, Suzukamo Y. Manual of the SF‐8 Japanese Version. Kyoto: Institute for Health Outcomes & Process Evaluation Research; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Tokuda Y, Okubo T, Ohde S, et al. Assessing items on the SF‐8 Japanese version for health‐related quality of life: a psychometric analysis based on the nominal categories model of item response theory. Value Health 2009; 12: 568–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. RASCH G. An item analysis which takes individual differences into account. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 1966; 19: 49–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Andrich D. Rasch models for measurement Newbury Park; London: Sage; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Fischer GH, Molenaar IW. Rasch models: foundations, recent developments, and applications. New York: Springer‐Verlag; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 2nd ed. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Linacre JM. Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program. Beaverton, Oregon: Winsteps.com; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating scale analysis. Chicago (USA): Mesa Press; 1982. [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Wright BD, Linacre JM. Reasonable mean‐square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions 1994; 8: 370. [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Schumacker R, Smith E. A Rasch perspective. Educ Psychol Meas 2007; 67: 394–409. [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Linacre JM. Investigating rating scale category utility. J Outcome Meas 1999; 3: 103–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Nering ML, Ostini R. Handbook of Polytomous Item Response Theory Models; 2011.
  • 35. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 1999; 6: 1–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Kim J, Klein DN, Olino TM, Dyson MW, Dougherty LR, Durbin CE. Psychometric properties of the Behavioral Inhibition Questionnaire in preschool children. J Pers Assess 2011; 93: 545–55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Smith RM. Fit analysis in latent trait measurement models. J Appl Meas 2000; 1: 199–218. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Conrad KJ, Smith EV, Jr. International conference on objective measurement: applications of Rasch analysis in health care. Med Care 2004; 42: I1–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Andersen E. Sufficient statistics and latent trait models. Psychometrika 1977; 42: 69–81. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Material

Click here for additional data file. (174.7KB, pdf)

Articles from Journal of Occupational Health are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES