Comparison of two measures of work functioning in a population of claimants with physical and psychological injuries

Comparison of two measures of work functioning in a population of claimants with physical and... Research has focused on advancing our understanding of strategies to improve return to work outcomes following a physical injury. There has been limited research on the different types of supports needed for workers returning to work following a psychological injury. Developing a better understanding of work limitations when people are back at work is a key step in the development of strategies in this area. Unfortunately, measurement tools have been established separately by injury type, limiting research opportunities to compare differences in work limitations. In this article, we compare two measures of work functioning in a population of claimants that have returned to work following a musculoskeletal or psychological injury: a modified version of the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ) developed for workers with physical injuries and the Lam Employed Absence Productivity Scale (LEAPS) developed for workers with mental health claims. A telephone questionnaire was administered to 214 claimants who returned to work following a claim for a psychological injury or a musculoskeletal injury. While the modified WLQ detected differences in work limitations by injury type, there were no significant differences in levels of work functioning detected by the LEAPS. The comparison demonstrated the value of including questions about work limitations that go beyond mental and interpersonal demands for claimants with psychological injuries; however, there is also a need to limit questions about physical constraints. A modified version of the WLQ is recommended to further our understandings of the similarities and differences in the experiences of workers with psychological versus physical injuries. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Quality & Quantity Springer Journals

Comparison of two measures of work functioning in a population of claimants with physical and psychological injuries

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/comparison-of-two-measures-of-work-functioning-in-a-population-of-VFeMjb8S7R
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 by Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Subject
Social Sciences; Methodology of the Social Sciences; Social Sciences, general
ISSN
0033-5177
eISSN
1573-7845
D.O.I.
10.1007/s11135-016-0313-6
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Research has focused on advancing our understanding of strategies to improve return to work outcomes following a physical injury. There has been limited research on the different types of supports needed for workers returning to work following a psychological injury. Developing a better understanding of work limitations when people are back at work is a key step in the development of strategies in this area. Unfortunately, measurement tools have been established separately by injury type, limiting research opportunities to compare differences in work limitations. In this article, we compare two measures of work functioning in a population of claimants that have returned to work following a musculoskeletal or psychological injury: a modified version of the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ) developed for workers with physical injuries and the Lam Employed Absence Productivity Scale (LEAPS) developed for workers with mental health claims. A telephone questionnaire was administered to 214 claimants who returned to work following a claim for a psychological injury or a musculoskeletal injury. While the modified WLQ detected differences in work limitations by injury type, there were no significant differences in levels of work functioning detected by the LEAPS. The comparison demonstrated the value of including questions about work limitations that go beyond mental and interpersonal demands for claimants with psychological injuries; however, there is also a need to limit questions about physical constraints. A modified version of the WLQ is recommended to further our understandings of the similarities and differences in the experiences of workers with psychological versus physical injuries.

Journal

Quality & QuantitySpringer Journals

Published: Feb 2, 2016

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

Monthly Plan

  • Read unlimited articles
  • Personalized recommendations
  • No expiration
  • Print 20 pages per month
  • 20% off on PDF purchases
  • Organize your research
  • Get updates on your journals and topic searches

$49/month

Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial

Best Deal — 39% off

Annual Plan

  • All the features of the Professional Plan, but for 39% off!
  • Billed annually
  • No expiration
  • For the normal price of 10 articles elsewhere, you get one full year of unlimited access to articles.

$588

$360/year

billed annually
Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial