The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire v2.0 Showed Consistent Factor Structure Across Six Working Samples
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
- The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire v2.0 Showed Consistent Factor Structure Across Six Working Samples
Final published version, 707 KB, PDF document
Femke I. Abma, Ute Bültmann, Benjamin C. Amick, Iris Arends, Heleen F. Dorland, Peter A. Flach, Jac J.L. van der Klink, Hardy A. van de Ven, Jakob Bue Bjørner
Objective: The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire v2.0 (WRFQ) is an outcome measure linking a persons’ health to the ability to meet work demands in the twenty-first century. We aimed to examine the construct validity of the WRFQ in a heterogeneous set of working samples in the Netherlands with mixed clinical conditions and job types to evaluate the comparability of the scale structure.
Methods: Confirmatory factor and multi-group analyses were conducted in six cross-sectional working samples (total N = 2433) to evaluate and compare a five-factor model structure of the WRFQ (work scheduling demands, output demands, physical demands, mental and social demands, and flexibility demands). Model fit indices were calculated based on RMSEA ≤ 0.08 and CFI ≥ 0.95. After fitting the five-factor model, the multidimensional structure of the instrument was evaluated across samples using a second order factor model.
Results: The factor structure was robust across samples and a multi-group model had adequate fit (RMSEA = 0.63, CFI = 0.972). In sample specific analyses, minor modifications were necessary in three samples (final RMSEA 0.055–0.080, final CFI between 0.955 and 0.989). Applying the previous first order specifications, a second order factor model had adequate fit in all samples.
Conclusion: A five-factor model of the WRFQ showed consistent structural validity across samples. A second order factor model showed adequate fit, but the second order factor loadings varied across samples. Therefore subscale scores are recommended to compare across different clinical and working samples.
|Journal||Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation|
|Number of pages||10|
|Publication status||Published - 2018|
- Confirmatory factor analyses, Validity, Work role functioning, Workers
Number of downloads are based on statistics from Google Scholar and www.ku.dk