Skip Navigation



Occupational Medicine Advance Access published online on March 15, 2008

Occupational Medicine, doi:10.1093/occmed/kqn024
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gilworth, G.
Right arrow Articles by Tennant, A.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gilworth, G.
Right arrow Articles by Tennant, A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

The development and validation of the Office Work Screen

Gill Gilworth1, Glyn Smyth2, Jacqui Smith2 and Alan Tennant3

1 The University of Leeds, Work Fit Occupational Physiotherapy and Ergonomics Services Ltd and Work Screen Ltd, Leeds, UK
2 Work Fit Occupational Physiotherapy and Ergonomics Services Ltd and Work Screen Ltd, Leeds, UK
3 The Rehabilitation Medicine, Section of Musculoskeletal Disease, Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Leeds, 36, Clarendon Road, Leeds LS2 9NZ and Work Screen Ltd

Background: The prevalence and costs to both employers and individuals of musculoskeletal disorders and associated psychosocial factors are well documented. There is increasing evidence that early identification is the key to the prevention of chronicity and sickness absence.

Aims: The study aimed to develop and validate a screening questionnaire, capturing relevant psychosocial issues and musculoskeletal symptoms, to measure work instability (WI) in office workers.

Methods: The staged methodology was based upon Rasch analysis and included item banking from existing Work Instability scales and analysis of new data from postal surveys. The criterion validity of the emerging scale was examined using vocational assessments by occupational physiotherapists.

Results: A 62-item questionnaire was returned by 153 employees from two different settings. The data were fitted to the Rasch model and 26 items were found to fit model expectations (chi-square P = 0.07), satisfy strict requirements for unidimensionality and discriminate across expert defined levels of WI. Reliability was 0.9, indicating suitability for use at the individual level. Absence of item bias was shown for age, gender and if the individual had been off sick from work in the past 3 months, suggesting the scale is robust to variations in workforce composition and sickness absence rates.

Conclusions: The Office Work Screen is a short questionnaire incorporating both musculoskeletal symptoms and relevant psychosocial factors in one dimension. This new questionnaire may facilitate workforce screening, individual monitoring and proactive targeting of interventions (for example, vocational rehabilitation) to prevent or minimize sickness absence in office workers.

Keywords      Work instability; sickness absence; screening questionnaire; office workers; Rasch analysis


Correspondence to: Gill Gilworth, Work Fit, Occupational Physiotherapy and Ergonomics Services, 5, The Courtyard, 110–118 Church Street, Leeds LS10 2JA, UK. Tel: +44 113 2705444; fax: +44 113 2702666; e-mail: gill{at}work-fit.co.uk


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.