The Development of an Instrument to Measure the Work Capability of People with Limited Work Capacity (LWC)

The Development of an Instrument to Measure the Work Capability of People with Limited Work... Purpose Participation in regular paid jobs positively affects mental and physical health of all people, including people with limited work capacities (LWC), people that are limited in their work capacity as a consequence of their disability, such as chronic mental illness, psychological or developmental disorder. For successful participation, a good fit between on one hand persons’ capacities and on the other hand well-suited individual support and a suitable work environment is necessary in order to meet the demands of work. However, to date there is a striking paucity of validated measures that indicate the capability to work of people with LWC and that outline directions for support that facilitate the fit. Goal of the present study was therefore to develop such an instrument. Specifically, we adjusted measures of mental ability, conscientiousness, self- efficacy, and coping by simplifying the language level of these measures to make the scales accessible for people with low literacy. In order to validate these adjusted self-report and observer measures we conducted two studies, using multi-source, longitudinal data. Method Study 1 was a longitudinal multi-source study in which the newly developed instrument was administered twice to people with LWC and their significant other. We statistically tested the psychometric properties with respect to dimensionality and reliability. In Study 2, we collected new multi-source data and conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results Studies yielded a congruous factor structure in both samples, internally consistent measures with adequate content validity of scales and subscales, and high test–retest reliability. The CFA confirmed the factorial validity of the scales. Conclusion The adjusted self-report and the observer scales of mental ability, conscientiousness, self-efficacy, and coping are reliable measures that are well-suited to assess the work capability of people with LWC. Further research is needed to examine criterion-related validity with respect to the work demands such as work-behaviour and task performance. Keywords Work capacity assessment · Ability to work · People with limited mental work capacity · Intellectual disabilities · Low literacy Introduction capacity of people with LWC. Their limitations vary from developmental disorders (67%), mental illnesses (19%) and In Europe there is growing understanding of the economic somatic disability (14%), and half of this group deals with and psychological importance of labour participation of a combination of disorders [1]. Although the nature and people with limited work capacity (LWC). People with severity of the limitations differ from person to person, the LWC concern a very wide and diverse group of people that majority of people with LWC experience difficulties with has, similar to the general population, the right to labour important cognitive skills that affect the capability to work, participation stated by the International Covenant on Civil such as concentration, memory recall, setting priorities, and Political Rights (1966). Unfortunately, fundamental and problem solving [2]. Furthermore, they often have dif- disabilities and restrictions overshadow the talent and work ficulties with understanding and remembering job related procedures or instructions, interactions with coworkers, lack persistence in order to complete the work, and adapt * Gemma M. C. van Ruitenbeek and act independently (Social Security Administration in gemma.vanruitenbeek@maastrichtuniversity.nl [3]). Nevertheless, they are entitled to get the support they Department of Work and Social Psychology, Faculty need in order to participate in work [4]. Several scholars of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, have highlighted the economic and psychological values P. O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation of participation in work [5–8]. In addition, more recently to their limitations, people with LWC may not be able to research of Schuring et al. [9] showed that people from the critically reflect on themselves and to provide accurate target group with a paid job evaluated their mental health, answers in self-report questionnaires. However, we believe happiness, self-worth and mastery significantly higher than that people with LWC will be able to reflect on themselves people who stayed unemployed. Moreover, their level of with the help of tailored measures. For this reason, it is all independency increased, while the use of care decreased as the more important to tailor the measures to this specific a result of labour participation. target group and adapt the language. Moreover, to address Notwithstanding their limitations, the majority of people concerns of professionals in the field, we argue that it is with LWC are capable to provide a productive contribution important to use other sources of information in combination dependent on adequate support [10] and a suitable job [11]. with information provided by the target person (the person We argue that self-report instruments can enable people with with LWC). A unique feature of the instrument we devel- LWC to identify their respective strengths and weaknesses oped in the present endeavour is therefore that it consists of and that such an instrument is indispensable for their suc- a self-report (of the target person) and an observer version cessful integration into the labour market. However, up to that is to be completed by one or more significant others. date tailored self-report instruments for selection and sup- These are individuals who know the target person well, such port practices of people with LWC are lacking in human as relatives or people who work or have worked with the resource practices. The existing instruments that have been target person. developed for the general population are not always suitable In sum, this project aims to develop a customized instru- for people with LWC, since they often deal with low literacy ment that measures the mental work capability of people or lack in mental ability to understand the language that is with LWC, in order to enhance the individual support that used in most questionnaires. For instance, people with autis- is given by co-workers or supervisors in the daily work tic symptoms face problems with metaphorical language. practice on the work floor. As such, the present instrument Moreover, people with mental disorders such as attention extends and supplements existing tools with more thera- deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often face difficulties peutic foci (e.g. the Occupational Therapy Practice Frame- in concentrating over longer periods of time, which makes work or Model of Human Occupation). For example, the it difficult for them to complete extensive instruments. For present instrument can be used as a tool that can facilitate these reasons we adapted existing instruments in order to the transition process from clinical support to support in develop an instrument that assesses the mental work capabil- daily practice. ity of people with LWC, and that can help to identify their In this study, we combine knowledge from the disciplines respective strengths and weaknesses. First, such an instru- of work and organizational psychology and occupational ment can inform selection and placement decisions. Second, rehabilitation. In doing so, we not only build upon this it sheds light on areas in which people with LWC require knowledge but also make important contributions to them. training or need specific support on the work floor. Third, The work and organizational psychology literature has built it can help people with LWC to reflect on their strengths up a solid knowledge base on how personal characteristics and weaknesses, which will promote their professional and (personality traits, mental abilities) relate to work perfor- personal development. As described above, it is crucial that mance [13–19]. However, this line of research has only con- people with LWC are enabled to reflect on their strengths sidered the general population, while ignoring the specifics and weaknesses in order to develop a certain level of self- of individuals with LWC. In the occupational rehabilitation understanding. Timmer et al. [12] claim that self-reflection literature, the specifics of individuals with LWC are well enables people with LWC to take on more responsibility and understood, but the role of personal characteristics like initiative, and increases their autonomy. Goal of the present personality traits and mental capabilities with employment study is therefore to present the development and initial vali- outcomes has received far less attention [20, 21]. Recently dation of an instrument to assess the mental work capability also in this discipline occupational rehabilitation, studies of people with LWC. have been conducted on the relation between personality Typically, measures used in Human Resources Manage- traits and work productivity of people with mental disorders. ment for selection and developmental purposes are self- Nevertheless, we argue that both disciplines can benefit from report measures. Naturally, the validity and usefulness of tailored and validated measures to study more accurately such measures is dependent on the extent to which individu- relationships between personality traits and work perfor- als are willing and able to reflect on themselves, their feel- mance in this specific population. ings, experiences, behaviour, and respond to the respective items. Yet, professionals in the field of integration of people with LWC on the regular labour market, such as job coaches and vocational experts, regularly express concerns that due 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation of mental ability depends on the level of job complex- Method ity [15]. An important question in this respect is: which cognitive skills predict work performance of people with Based on the work and organizational psychology litera- limited work capacity? Fadyl et al. [2] argue that cogni- ture we first selected specific scales which we expected to tive skills that clearly affect the work ability of workers be predictive of future work behaviour in our target group. who experience impairment(s) are: attention, concentra- We adapted existing measures of mental ability, conscien- tion, memory, planning and organizing, problem solving, tiousness, self-efficacy and coping to people with LWC. initiation, communication and adapting. The Vocational In the interest of this particular target group, of which the Cognitive Ratings Scale (VCRS) [24] includes these ele- majority deals with fundamental disabilities and restric- ments. The VCRS is designed for people with chronic tions, we chose not only to select predictors from the per- mental illness in order to assess their cognitive strengths sonality literature (i.e., mental ability, conscientiousness, and weaknesses in actual work settings, and by that, sug- and self-efficacy), but also a coping measure. Since the gest areas for improvement. We therefore argue that the nature and severity of the disability can differ from person VCRS can be helpful in our line of research and expect to person, we deem their coping-style of greater predictive that mental ability measured with an adapted version of importance than the nature or severity of their disability. the VCRS can be an important predictor of work perfor- In order to assess the psychometric properties of these mance of people with LWC. customized self-report and observer scales, we follow Conscientiousness is considered as the second most pow- Hinkin’s [22] steps for scale development. Specifically, erful predictor with respect to work performance in various we conducted two studies: the first study consisted of two levels of professions and jobs after mental ability [14, 16, phases. First, we developed the instrument and assessed 17]. Barrick and Mount [25] stated that conscientiousness the comprehensibility of scales for people with LWC. reflects all traits that are important to fulfil all kinds of task Second, we assessed the psychometric properties such as in all kinds of professions. People with high levels of con- dimensionality and reliability. In the second study the fac- scientiousness are seen as trustworthy, careful and cautious, torial validity was investigated. have high orientation to accomplish tasks [26], are reliable and goal-oriented [16], responsible, and hardworking [25]. Since we seek to identify powerful predictors of success at Study 1: Instrument Development, Dimensionality work in various low level work settings and jobs, conscien- and Reliability tiousness seems to be precisely that personal characteristic that is essential for the success in work of people with LWC. Measures In this study the Dutch HEXACO personality inventory [27] was tailored to people with LWC. In this section we describe the theoretical basis for the Various researchers have indicated that self-efficacy is an selection of various scales. The concepts of mental abil- important predictor of work behaviour and other important ity, conscientiousness, self-efficacy and coping will be work related outcomes, such as job performance [18, 19]. discussed. Furthermore, we will elaborate on the process However, this has only been studied in the general popula- of assessing the face validity and evaluating the clarity tion. Self-efficacy reflects an individuals’ tendency to rely of the language used in the scales for people with a low- on one’s ability to meet job demands in different work con- literacy level. texts [19, 28, 29]. Self-efficacy can be seen as trust in one’s General mental ability (GMA) [14] or general cogni- effectiveness. The self-efficacy theory of Bandura [30, 31] tive ability [13] refers to individuals’ capability for logical assumes that efficacy determines the type of action people reasoning, solving problems, making decisions, abstract take, the level of effort they put in and their persistency [28]. thinking, and the ability to learn [15]. GMA or IQ [23] We think that in particular the level of effort that people are is generally considered as the most valid predictor of job willing to invest and their persistency are important predic- performance [13–15]. However, the nature of work and tors of work success of people with LWC. In this study we its context determine how important mental ability is. For adapted the GSES-12 scale of Bosscher [28] to people with complex tasks, mental ability is often more relevant than LWC. for simple tasks. Simple or routinized tasks rely less on Coping refers to the cognitive and behavioural effort that problem solving behaviour, and require less abstract think- people display in order to control, bear or reduce the effects ing and decision making. As a consequence, mental abil- of internal or external stressors [32, 33]. It is an action that ity has less predictive power for low-complexity than for is triggered as a result of the (re)appraisal of stressors [32]. high-complexity jobs. It goes without saying that all tasks Coping can be seen as a dynamic and continuous process of require some level of mental ability, but the required level self-regulation. It encompasses actions that are undertaken 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation on a daily basis to master or reduce the impact of any kind Minor changes have been made in the language of the of threat (i.e. disease, disorder or limitation) [34]. Find- questionnaire. For example: “I’d rather do something spon- ing and in particular keeping a job are to a considerable taneously, instead of working according to a set plan.” has extent dependent on the effectiveness of the self-regulation been changed in: “I’d rather do something as it comes to my or coping strategies of people with serious mental illness mind, instead of working according to a set plan.” [35–37]. Other authors have also indicated how important All original scales discriminate v fi e score options and the self-regulation or self-management are as predictors of the majority used five-point Likert-scales. Since a Likert-type development in job-performance [38]. Although these stud- scale is most used in behavioural research [22], we chose ies have been conducted in the general population we think this type of scaling for all scales. Furthermore, in order to that coping is an even more important predictor of success keep answering a questionnaire as easy as possible, all scales for people with LWC, since many of them are dealing with were designed in a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 = some- serious restrictions and disabilities they have to overcome. times, 3 = regularly, 4 = almost always, 5 = always). For that reason, the shortened coping inventory for stressful situations (CISS-21) [39] was adopted and adjusted for the Participants and Procedure use with people with LWC. After the selection of the concepts described above, we We administered our survey twice on several schools for took into account the general guidelines for item develop- youngsters of our target group: schools for special educa- ment [22]. Statements were formulated as simple and as tion (N at T was 35 and N at T was 31 students), schools 1 2 short as possible, and translated to a language level that for practical education and a remedial educational centre (N is intelligible for people with LWC. Since a large part of at T was 75 and N at T was 68 students), and a school for 1 2 people with LWC struggles with low-literacy and/or lacks vocational training for low-complexity jobs (N at T was 68 the mental ability to understand complex language that con- and N on T was 46 students). In total 178 (56.2% male) stu- tains figurative language or double negatives, existing rat- dents participated at T and 145 (56.6% male) students at T . 1 2 ing scales for mental ability [24], conscientiousness [27], Participants had a mean age of 17.5 (SD = 1.6) at T and 17.4 self-efficacy [28], and coping [39] were adjusted to meet a (SD = 1.5) at T . In total 172 significant others participated low-literacy level. Items were formulated at language level at T and 136 at T . The significant others who participated 1, 2 B1 (simple Dutch), figurative and non-literal language was varied from parent (N at T was 16, N at T was 15), supervi- 1 2 avoided and items address only one single issue to assure sor (N at T was 11, N at T was 9), mentor (N at T was 127, 1 2 1 appropriate interpretation of items by the respondents. N at T was 95), to teacher (N at T was 18, N at T was 17). 2 1 2 A pre-test was conducted to assess the adequacy of the Participants were informed about the procedure and their scales and to test whether people from the target group were rights with respect to the research. If students were above able to read and interpret the items correctly. First, the rel- 18 years old and fully accountable, they signed an informed evance for practice and the suitability of the language level consent themselves. Otherwise, their guardian signed the of the questionnaire for the target group was discussed in informed consent. After oral information on the study was two focus groups consisting of professionals in the field, given and questions were answered, students completed the such as job coaches and vocational experts. Second, 16 questionnaire in a classroom under supervision of the first people from the target group completed the questionnaire author. The study was approved by the faculty’s standing individually under supervision of the first author. In order ethical committee for psychology of Maastricht University to check their ability to read the items, we asked them to (reference ECP-133- 08_10_2013). read questions out loud. To test the correct interpretation, we asked them to explain the meaning of randomly chosen Analytic Strategy questions. Moreover, people from the target group were also asked how they experienced the completion of the ques- In order to statistically test the psychometric properties of tionnaire, and what their opinion was about the readability the self-report and observer scale and avoiding memory and appropriateness of the questionnaire. Feedback from effects, we administered the same questionnaire twice with these processes has been incorporated in the questionnaires. an interval of 3 months to a group of people with LWC and Examples of changes made based on the feedback from to a ‘significant other’ of the respondent (such as a parent professionals in the field concerned; explication of what is or mentor). Subsequently, we subjected the data to explora- meant by “organizing work efficiently”. We split this item tory factor analysis (EFA) to explore the dimensionality of up into several items referring to concrete actions, such as: scales, and we calculated internal consistency of scales and “I prepare things, before I start my work”, “I complete tasks subscales. Furthermore, we determined the test–retest reli- in a logical order.”, “I check whether I have done my work ability, and we computed the correlation between the scores correctly.”, and “I correct my mistakes.” of the respondent and the significant others. To examine the 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation appropriateness of the adapted scales for people with low observer ratings. Moreover, we explored the self-intimate mental capacity and low literacy, we did both an exploratory relationship (e.g. parents, partner, family or friends) correla- factor analysis (EFA) and assessed the test–retest reliability. tion, and the self-work-related relationship (e.g. job supervi- We applied EFA to assess whether underlying dimensions sor, supervisor, personal coach or colleague) correlation. As of the new scales were consistent with the dimensions in previous research has revealed differences in the accuracy of the original scales, and to see whether the dimensionality observer ratings of personality dependent on the frequency in both samples corresponded. Moreover, EFA was used to of interacting with targets [42], we explored the self-intimate reduce the number of items in order to create a parsimoni- relationship correlation and the self-work-related relation- ous set of variables [22]. We separately subjected the items ship correlation. In order to calculate these correlations, we of the different measures (mental ability, conscientious- created dummy variables for intimate relationship and for ness, self-efficacy and coping) of the target group and the work-related relationship. SPSS version 24 was used for all group of significant others sample to principal components these calculations. analysis (PCA) a technique for EFA. After inspection of the correlation matrix that demonstrated that components were related, we subjected the conscientiousness and self-efficacy scale to initial PCA with oblique rotation. The mental abil- Results ity scale and the coping scale were subjected to initial PCA with orthogonal rotation because the component correla- Since the original VCRS scale [24] lacks factor structural tion matrix showed that components of both scales were information we ran an initial PCA on a 23-item scale in not related. Primarily extraction was based on the factor which the extraction was based on Eigenvalues exceeding structure of the original scale, and since the original men- Kaiser’s criterion of 1. Examination of the correlation matrix tal ability scale lacks a clear factor structure the extraction on inter-item correlations of variables showed no correla- was based on Eigenvalues exceeding Kaiser’s criterion of 1. tion between one item and all other variables in the student First, we examined if the Kaiser–Meyer–Olin (KMO) cri- sample that justified deletion of this item from the analysis. terion exceeded the acceptable limit of .5 [40] and checked After deletion of this item and repetition of the procedure, whether the Barletts’ Test of Sphericity reached statistical PCA resulted in a five-factor model for the mental ability significance on the different scales in both samples. Subse- scale in both samples (i.e. self-report and observer report). quently, we examined the correlation matrix on inter-item These five factors refer to five of the eight cognitive skills correlations of variables. A lack of correlation between a that Fadyl et al. [2] recognised as important cognitive skills variable and other variables justifies deletion of that item that can interfere with work functioning such as concentra- [41]. Based on this absence of inter-item correlation we tion, memory, planning and organizing, problem solving, deleted one item from the mental ability scale and one from and adapting. Moreover, based on congruity between the the conscientiousness scale. After deletion of these items loadings of items on components in the target group sample we repeated the PCA procedure. Subsequently, we explored and loadings of items on component in the significant others the congruity between the loadings of items on components sample, we retained all five components. After inspection of of the original scales and loadings of items on components the rotated component matrix we rejected five items, because of the newly developed scales. When congruity with the they had no or relatively low loading on the factor they original scales was lacking we based the evaluation process belong to in terms of content or did not load on a congruent about the retention of the number of components on inspec- component in both samples. After rejection of those items tion of the scree plots graphs. Additionally, when scree plots and repetition of the procedure, the five-factor model with showed unclear dimensionality we ran a Monte Carlo Par- 17 items explained in total 65.35% of the variance in the allel PCA parallel analysis [Watkins, 2000 in [41]. Next, target group sample, with planning & organisation, learning we assessed the test–retest reliability by exploring the rela- & memory, adaptability, concentration, and problem solving, tionship between two sets of scores on the scales that were contributing ranging from 33.16 to 5.78%. In the significant administered twice to the same people at T and 3 month other sample the model explained in total 72.21%, with vari- later (T ). We performed preliminary analysis to determine ances ranging from 39.67 to 6.16% for the subscales. A more the assumption of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity detailed overview of factor loadings is given in Table 1, and [41]. We calculated the relationship between the measure- a detailed overview of item loadings on components can be ments with the Pearsons product-moment correlation coef- obtained from the authors. ficient and for the non-parametric correlations Spearman’s The internal consistency reliability of the mental ability rho. We indicated the reliability or the accuracy of scales scale (17 items) was .88 with alphas for the five subscales with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Finally, we calculated the ranging from .72 to .84 in the self-report scale, and respec- self-other correlation in order to explore the accuracy of the tively .91 ranging from .74 to .90 in the observer scale. 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 1 3 Table 1 Results of principal component analysis, internal consistency, test–retest reliability and self-other correlation Scale and Number of Remaining Number of Target group sample (N = 178) Test– Significant others sample (N = 172) Test– Self-other subscales items original items components retest retest correla- Cumm % Eigen values % of variance α Cumm % Eigen values % of variance α scale of new scales reliabil- reliabil- tion of vari- of vari- ity target ity signifi- ance ance group cant other Mental abil- 23 17 5 65.36 .87 .76** 72.21 .90 .62** .43** ity Planning & – 7 5.637 33.16 .84 .63** 6.743 39.67 .88 .60** .39** organisa- tion Learning & – 4 1.898 11.16 .74 .47** 1.725 10.15 .82 .56** .25** memory Adaptability – 2 1.372 8.07 .76 .53** 1.233 7.25 .74 .50** .21** Concentra- – 2 1.222 7.19 .75 .69** 1.528 8.99 .90 .63** .28** tion Problem – 2 0.982 5.78 .72 .65** 1.048 6.16 .75 .29** .20** solving Conscien- 10 8 1 41.26 3.301 41.26 .80 .72** 59.60 4.768 59.60 .90 .78** .35** tiousness Self-efficacy 12 10 2 50.61 .79 .79** 65.24 .88 .75** .37** Persistency – 6 3.455 34.55 .79 .69** 4.956 49.57 .92 .75** .32** Self-confi- – 4 1.606 16.06 .68 .72** 1.567 15.67 .73 .65** .26** dence Coping 21 19 (7) 3 57.19 .85 .67** 80.74 .25 .57** – Emotion- 8 8 (2) 4.713 29.46 .88 .75** 1.363 19.47 .79 .57** – oriented Task-oriented 7 7 (3) 2.808 17.55 .86 .69** 3.000 42.86 .86 .64** – Avoidance 4 2 (2) 1.775 10.19 .64 .68** 1.289 18.42 .69 .53** – Originally ten items and four factors: organization (2), diligence (2), perfectionism (3), prudence (3) [27] Originally 12 items and 3 factors initiative (3), effort (5) and persistence (4) [28] Number of items significant others scale The scale is normally distributed in the target group sample and non-normally distributed in the significant other sample, the Spearman’s rho and Pearson correlations are respectively .35 and .36 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation The test–retest reliability of the complete mental ability from .68 to .79 for the self-report scale and respectively scale (17 items) was r = .76, with correlation coefficients for .88 and ranging from .73 to .92 for the observer scale. the five subscales ranging from .47 to .69 for the self-report The test–retest reliability of the complete self-efficacy scale and respectively r = .62 and ranging from .29 to .63 for scale was r = .79 with correlation coefficients’ varying in the observer scale. the subscales between .69 and .79 for the self-report scale The self-other correlation for the mental ability scale was and r = .75 and from .65 to .75 for the observer scale. .43, .53 for the intimate relationship and .43 for the work- The self-other correlation for the self-efficacy scale was related relationship, and for the subscales varying from .20 .37, .83 for the intimate relationship and .35 for the work- to .39 the self-other correlation, varying from .42 to .62 for related relationship, and the self-other correlation for the the intimate relationship, and varying from .16 to .38 for the subscales varied from .26 to .32, varying from .43 to .61 work-related relationship. for the intimate relationship, and varying from .24 to .30 We executed initial PCA of the conscientiousness scale for the work-related relationship. in which extraction was forced to four components in cor- The self-report scale and observer scale differed to a respondence with the original scale. Congruity between the large extent, because we only included observable items loadings of items on components of the original scale and in the observer scale. For that reason, the initial self-report loadings of items on components of the newly developed scale included 21 items, whereas the observer coping scale scale was lacking in both samples. The scree plot showed included seven items. Nevertheless, we performed initial a clear large drop between the first eigenvalue and the sec- PCA of the self-report and observer coping scale, extrac- ond, followed by a tailing off in both samples, which led to tion was forced to three components in correspondence the conclusion that the self-report scales and the observer with the original coping scale. In the observer sample all scale for conscientiousness are unidimensional [43]. A one- items loaded in accordance with the three original compo- factor solution for the conscientiousness scale with 8 items nents of the CISS-21 [39], whereas in the self-report sam- explained in total 37.37% of the variance in the target group ple only two originally avoidance coping items loaded on sample and respectively 56.55% in the significant others the emotion-oriented coping component. We rejected these sample. two items on this conflicting content ground. A repetition The internal consistency of the complete conscientious- of the procedure after rejection of these two items resulted ness scale was α = .80 for the self-report scale and α = .90 in a three-component solution with 19 items that explained for the observer scale. The correlation coefficient of the 55.30% of the variance, with emotion-oriented coping, conscientiousness scale was r = .72 for the self-report scale task-oriented coping, and avoidance coping contributing and r = .78 observer scale. The self-other correlation for the varying from 28.74 to 9.34% for the self-report coping conscientiousness scale was .35 varying from .46 for the scale. The three-component solution for the observer- intimate relationship to .34 for the work-related relationship. report coping scale with seven items explained 80.74% of We carried out an initial PCA of the self-efficacy scale the variance, with task-oriented coping, emotion-oriented in which extraction was forced to three components in cor- coping and avoidance coping contributing varying form respondence with the original scale. Congruity between the 42.86 to 18.42%. loadings of items on components of the original scale and The internal consistency of the complete coping scale loadings of items on components of the self-efficacy scale (19 items) was .86, with alpha for the two subscales rang- was lacking in both samples. The scree plot graphs were ing from .64 to .88 for the self-report scale, and respec- unclear, and thus we doubted the dimensionality of the scale. tively .25, with alpha for the three subscales ranging from Therefore, we ran additional an Monte Carlo Parallel PCA .69 to .86 for the observer scale. parallel analysis [Watkins, 2000 in 41], that led us to the The test–retest reliability of the coping scale was r = .67 conclusion of a two-dimensional model of the self-efficacy with correlation coefficients varying in the subscales scale in both samples. We repeated the PCA procedure in between .68 and .75 for the self-report scale, and respec- which extraction of two components was forced. Two items tively r = .57 with correlation coefficients’ varying in the did not load on a congruent component in a two factor struc- subscales between .53 and .64 for the observer scale. Addi- tured model. For that reason, those items were rejected. A tionally, the inter-item correlation of the four-item avoid- two-factor model with ten items explained in total 50.61% of ance coping subscale was examined because the Cronbach the variance, with persistency contributing 34.55% and self- value was smaller than .7. The mean inter-item correlation confidence contributing 16.06% in the target group sample was .31, which is an optimal inter-item correlation accord- and respectively 65.24, 49.57 and 15.67% in the significant ing to Briggs and Cheek [44]. others sample. The internal consistency of the self-efficacy scale in total was .79, with alpha for the two subscales ranging 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Finally, we calculated the self-other correlation in order Discussion to assess the accuracy of the observer ratings. Even though results show relatively low self-other correlations, this rela- In this first study we executed EFA to assess whether under - tively low accuracy level can be clarified by the fact that ling dimensions of the new scales were consistent with the more than 90% of the observers were work-related observ- dimensions in the original scales, and if the dimensionality ers that accounted for relatively small correlations levels, of self-reports and observer-reports corresponded. Since while only 10% of the intimate-relation observers accounted there is no factor structure indicated of the original VCRS for medium to large correlations. These results correspond scale [24] in the literature, the consistency with the original with former research findings. A meta-analysis of Connelly scale could not be assessed. However, results showed similar and Ones [42] showed that differences in accuracy in rating dimensionality in the adapted mental ability scale in both, personality traits is dependent on interpersonal intimacy, the the target group sample and the significant others sample. higher the frequency of interacting with the target, the higher Although our results indicated that the dimensionality the accuracy. of the adapted conscientiousness scale and the adapted self-efficacy scale do not correspond with the original Study 2: Testing Factorial Validity scales, EFA indicated corresponding dimensionality in the conscientiousness scale and in the self-efficacy scale Measures in both, the target group sample and the significant others sample. Differences in factor structure between the newly We used the measures for mental ability, conscientiousness, developed and the original scales can be explained by the self-efficacy and coping resulting from the above described fact that we substantially changed the original scales. We exploratory factor analysis to test their factorial validity. deem the fact that the factor structure show correspond- ing dimensionality in both samples of greater importance. Participants and Procedure Furthermore, the factor structure of the self-report coping scale and the observer coping scale corresponded with the In order to test the factorial validity new data was collected original coping scale. Although, the number of items in on several schools (e.g. schools for practical education and the self-report scale and the observer scale differ largely, a school for low-level vocational training) for youngsters we found similar factor patterns in both samples, and items of our target group (20%), and in training centres for work loaded on corresponding dimensions. of people with LWC (80%). Questionnaires consisting of The test–retest correlation of scores on the scales that the tailored sales for mental ability, conscientiousness, self- were completed twice by the same people at T , and at T 1 2 efficacy and coping that resulted from study 1, were admin- indicated low to high correlations for both, the self-report istered to people from the target group and their significant scale and the observer scale. Longer time lags (> 1 month) others. The target group sample consisted of 264 individuals yield lower test–retest correlations (r < .70). Test–retest cor- (61.7% male). The mean age of the participants was 26.72 relations of > .5 over longer intervals appear to be reasonable (SD = 9.86). The education level of the respondents varied for personality traits [45]. Only one self-report subscale and from: 7.6% lack a diploma, 50.8% followed a low level of one observer subscale yielded a small test–retest correlation. education, 31.8% finished a secondary vocational education, Except for two subscales, the Cronbach’s alpha coef- 2.8% finished higher levels, for 7.2% the level of educa- ficients of the majority of the self-report scales and sub- tion is missing. The significant others sample consisted of scales exceeded .7 indicating good internal consistency 221 individuals. Their relation to the target group varied [45]. The two exceptions concern two subscales with two from intimate (59, 5%, such as a parent, partner or family and four items respectively, both subscales showed an opti- member), personal coach (23.1%), to work related relation mal mean inter-item correlation. (17.2%, such as job coach, work supervisor or internship With respect to the observer scales, excluding one cop- supervisor). ing subscale, all scales and subscales showed internal consistency. The lack of internal consistency of the total Analytic Strategy coping scale can be explained by the fact that the total observer scale consists only of seven items that reflect In order to assess the quality of the factor structure, we three different dimensions of coping. Moreover, two sub- applied confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) on the new data scales of coping show good internal consistency. And using Mplus Version 7.2. The CFA procedure consisted of although the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the third fac- an interactive process in which we evaluated the measure- tor was slightly below the cut-off point of .7, it showed an ment models resulting from study 1 by examination of fit optimal inter-item correlation. indices, such as the Chi square test, the Comparative Fit 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis Fit Index (TLI, also known Subsequently, we conducted CFA to test one-factor struc- as the Non-Normed Fit Index NNFI), the root mean square ture of the conscientiousness scale. The fit indices primar - of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized square ily indicated a poor fit in the self-report scale (N = 264). residual (SRMR). If necessary we revised the models based After inspection of the modification indices, we included on modification indices that derived from analyses, and one residual covariance to the model. The close relation afterwards, we re-evaluated the effects of the modifications. between the two items could be explained by the fact that these two items were composed of one double-barrelled item in the original conscientiousness scale. The model improved Results influential after this adaptation: Chi square test χ (19, N = 264) = 27.99, p = .084, CFI = .974, TLI = .962, RMSEA We performed CFA to cross-validate the five-factor structure (90% CI) = .042 (.000–.074) and SRMR = .041. Primarily of the mental ability scale. Examination of fit indices indi- CFA showed a poor also for the observer conscientiousness cated a reasonable fit for the self-report scale (N = 260) (see scale. After examination of the modification indices we Table 2). However, inspection of the modification indices allowed the same residual covariance as in the self-report indicated that a better fit could be obtained by inclusion of a scale. The model fit indices improved after the modifica - residual covariance to the model. We accepted this residual tion: Chi square test χ (19) = 36.17, p = .010, CFI = .977, covariance because both items are largely similar (‘I know TLI = .966, RMSEA (90% CI) = .064 (.031–.096) and which task is most important.’ and ‘The most important task SRMR = .033. I do first.’). The model fit indices improved influential after After performing CFA on the two-factor structure of the this adaptation: Chi square test χ (108, N = 260) = 192.48, self-efficacy scale the fit indices indicated a good fit for both, p = .000, CFI = .949, TLI = .936, RMSEA (90% CI) = .055 the self-report scale and the observer scale. The fit indices (.042–.067) and SRMR = .046. The fit indices primarily were respectively for the self-report self-efficacy scale: Chi showed also a reasonable fit for five-factor structure the square test χ (34, N = 262) = 55.45, p = .012, CFI = .968, observer scale of mental ability. After inspection of the mod- TLI = .957, RMSEA (90% CI) = .049 (.023–.072) and ification indices, we included the same residual covariance SRMR = .048, and of the observer self-efficacy scale: Chi included as we allowed in the self-report scale. The model square test χ (34, N = 208) = 59.86, p = .004, CFI = .9782, fit indices improved slightly after these adaptations: Chi TLI = .963, RMSEA (90% CI) = .60 (.034–.085) and square test χ (108, N = 221) = 227.81, p = .000, CFI = .942, SRMR = .036. TLI = .927, RMSEA (90% CI) = .073 (.059–.086) and CFA on the self-report coping scale resulted primar- SRMR = .046. ily in a poor fit. However, after inspection of we stepwise Table 2 Fit indices confirmatory factor analysis Scale Sample Model Chi square test χ df CFI TLI RMSEA (90% CI) SRMR Mental ability Target group (N = 260) Model derived from EFA 241.86 109 .920 .901 .068 (.057–.080) .049 a,g Modified model 180.83 107 .956 .944 .052 (.038–.064) .045 Significant other (N = 211) Model derived from EFA 423.05 142 .880 .855 .097 (.086–.108) .065 a,g Modified model 227.81 108 .942 .927 .073 (.059–.086) .046 Conscientiousness Target group (N = 264) Model derived from EFA 61.17 20 .883 .836 .088 (.064–.114) .054 Modified model 28.22 19 .974 .961 .043 (.000–.074) .041 Significant other (N = 219) Model derived from EFA 65.22 20 .940 .915 .102 (.075–.130) .042 c,g Modified model 36.17 19 .977 .966 .064 (.031–.096) .033 d,g Self-efficacy Target group (N = 262) Model derived from EFA 55.45 34 .968 .957 .049 (.023–.072) .048 Modified model – – – – – – Significant other (N = 208) Model derived from EFA 59.86 34 .972 .963 .060 (.034–.085) .036 Modified model – – – – – – Coping Target group (N = 264) Model derived from EFA 467.17 149 .826 .800 .090 (.081–.099) .107 a,g Modified model 164.29 100 .952 .942 .049 (.035–.063) .068 Significant other (N = 221) Model derived from EFA 15.13 11 .993 .986 .041 (.000–.087) .034 Modified model – – – – – – a b c d e f p = .000; p = .079; p = .010; p = .012; p = .004; p = .567 g 2 χ /df ≤ 3.0 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation removed three problematic items since these items cross- to the language level of people with LWC. The pre-test loaded on factors, which indicate that these items did not yielded face validity and gave confidence that the scales reflect clearly the underling psychological construct. More - were appropriate for people with LWC. EFA yielded con- over, we included one residual covariance to the model. gruent factor structures of the adapted scales in both samples The close relation of these two items could also be clari- and high test–retest reliability, indicating that people with fied by the fact that also these two items consisted of one LWC are equally able to complete the questionnaires as their double-bared item in the original coping scale [39]. The significant other. Moreover, the scales and subscales that fit indices improved influential: Chi square test χ (100, evolved from EFA possess adequate internal consistency and N = 264) = 164.29, p = .000, CFI = .952, TLI = .942, RMSEA observers accuracy correspond with former research. Based (90% CI) = .049 (.035–.063) and SRMR = .068. The good- study 1 we concluded the developed scales to be appropri- ness of fit indices indicated a good fit of the observer cop- ate and reliable measures for people with LWC and their ing scale. Chi square test χ (11, N = 221) = 15.13, p = .567, significant other. CFI = .993, TLI = .986 showed mediocre results, RMSEA Finally, we explored factorial validity in study 2. CFA (90% CI) = .041 (.000–.087) and SRMR = .034. results indicated that factorial validity was established and demonstrated that measures performed as intended. The modifications in scales after CFA only slightly affected fac- Discussion tor loadings, internal consistencies, and the test–retest reli- abilities. The final instrument with its psychometric proper - For the evaluation of the goodness of fit, we examined fit ties is provided can be obtained from the authors. indices such as the Chi square test. The smaller the Chi In sum, these studies yielded high test–retest reliability, square, the better the fit [22], small non-significant Chi adequate internal consistent scales with reasonable to good square values suggest a small misfit, while large significant fitting factor models for both, the self-report scales and the Chi square values suggest a large misfit. Since the Chi square observer scales. test is sensitive for the sample size, we verified the fit of the To conclude, we developed reliable well-suited measures 2 2 models with a relative high χ and significant χ as advo- that can help people with LWC to reflect on their strengths cated; we divided the χ by its degrees of freedom [Kline, and weaknesses as a requirement for their personal and pro- 2004 in 46]. All adjusted models demonstrated reasonable fessional development. It is an instrument that, in addition to fits since the statistic adjusted by its degrees of freedom do the already existing more therapeutic tools, that is expected not exceed 3.0. Furthermore, additional indices like CFI, to be useful in facilitating the transition from clinical sup- TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR were included in our goodness of port to support in daily work practice. More specific, this fit examination. Also these results meet the general guide- tool can strengthen methodical action of professionals in the lines [43–45, 47, 48] and showed well-fitting models for field with respect to the individual support of people with the self-report self-efficacy scale, the observer self-efficacy LWC. The self-report and the observer questionnaire can be scale, and the observer coping scale without any adapta- completed online or with paper and pencil. The duration of tion. The two conscientiousness scales showed good fits completion varies within the target group from 15 to 45 min, after minor adaptations. The self-report and observer scales and for the significant other 15 min on average. for mental ability, and the self-report coping scale showed Further research is needed to examine criterion-related reasonable to good fits after relatively few adaptations. validity with respect to the work demands such as work behaviour and task performance. General Discussion Labour participation is a necessity for all adults. Therefore, Limitations and Future Research also people with limitations are entitled to participate on the labour market at their own level of capacity. An instrument Although this multi-source data- and multi-phase study that can indicate the mental work capability of people with assured that the adapted scales possess content validity and LWC is lacking. Therefore, this study concerned the devel- internal consistency reliability, we were not able to assess opment of a work capability self-report and observer meas- convergent and discriminant validity due to the limitations in ure that can outline directions to address support in order the level of literacy of the target group. Moreover, this study to encourage the development of self-reflection of people does not cover the final step for scale validation of Hinkin with LWC and enhance occupational rehabilitation practices. [22]. Further research is required in order assess criterion- We conducted two studies. In the first study scales for related validity in order to explore if the measures possess mental ability, conscientiousness, self-efficacy and coping predictive validity with respect to work behaviour or work were selected on theoretical base, and subsequently adapted performance. 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Funding This work was supported by the Dutch Employee Insurance 9. Schuring M, Reeuwijk K, Burdorf A. Het monitoren van arbeids- Agency UWV. toeleiding van mensen met grote afstand tot de arbeidsmarkt en gezondheidsproblemen eindrapportage. [Monitoring job guidance of people with a large distance to the labor market and health Compliance with Ethical Standards problems, final report]. 2016. http://www.oval.nl/cms/files/2016- 05/eindrappor t age-monitor -voorbeeldp r ojecten-er asmusmc-apr il Conflict of interest Authors declare that they have no conflict of inter - -2016.pdf. Accessed 3 Apr 2017. est. 10. Villotti P, Corbière M, Dewa CS, Fraccaroli F, Sultan-Taïeb H, Zaniboni S, et al. A serial mediation model of workplace social Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human support on work productivity: the role of self-stigma and job ten- participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the insti- ure self-efficacy in people with severe mental disorders. Disabil tutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Rehabil. 2017. https ://doi.org/10.1080/09638 288.2017.13772 94. declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. 11. van Ruitenbeek GMC, Mulder MJGP, Zijlstra FRH, Nijhuis FJN, Mulders HPG. Een alternatieve benadering voor herontwerp van Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all partici- werk. Ervaringen met de methode Inclusief Herontwerp Werk- pants. Participants who were above 18 years old and fully account- processen. [An alternative approach for work redesign: experi- able, signed an informed consent themselves. Otherwise, their guardian ences with the method ‘Inclusive Redesign of Work Processes’] signed the informed consent. Gedrag Organ. 2013;26:104–122. 12. Timmer JT, Dekker K, Voortman H. Eigen Initiatief Model, Theorie en praktijk. [Self Initiative Model, Theory and prac- Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Crea- tice]. LKNG; 2003. http://www.kenni splei ngeha ndica ptens ector tive Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat iveco .nl/g ehan dicap tenzo r g/Pr odu ct-Eig en -Initi atief -Model .html. mmons.or g/licenses/b y/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu- Accessed 31 May 2015. tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate 13. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. The validity and utility of selection credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychol Bull. 1998;124(2):262–274. http://psy cn e t.apa.or g/buy/1998-10661 -006 14. Schmidt FL, Hunter J. General mental ability in the world of work: occupational attainment and job performance. J Pers Soc Psychol. References 2004;86(1):162–173. https ://doi.or g/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162. 15. Gottfredson LS. Why g matters: the complexity of everyday life. 1. UWV. Kerngegevens Wajong Feiten en cijfers. [Core data Wajong Intelligence 1997;24(1):79–132. http://linki nghub .elsev ier.com/ Facts and figures of the Dutch Employee Insurance Agency]. retri eve/pii/S0160 28969 79001 43. 2015. https ://www.uwv.nl/zakel ijk/Image s/kerng egeve ns-wajon 16. Barrick MR, Mount MK, Judge TA. Personality and performance g.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2017. at the beginning of the new millennium: what do we know and 2. Fadyl JK, Mcpherson KM, Schlüter PJ, Turner-Stokes L. Fac- where do we go next? Int J Sel Assess. 2001;9(1–2):9–30. https tors contributing to work-ability for injured workers: literature ://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00160. review and comparison with available measures. Disabil Reha- 17. Salgado JF, Viswesvaran C, Ones DS. Predictors used for person- bil. 2010;32(14):1173–1183. https://doi.or g/10.3109/0963828100 nel selection: an overview of constructs. In: Anderson N, Ones 36533 02. DS, Sinangil HK, Viswesvaran C, editors. Handbook of indus- 3. MacDonald-Wilson KL, Rogers ES, Massaro J. Identifying rela- trial, work and organizational psychology. London: Sage; 2001. tionships between functional limitations, job accommodations, p. 165–199. and demographic characteristics of persons with psychiatric dis- 18. Bono JE, Judge TA. Core self-evaluations: a review of the trait abilities. J Vocat Rehabil. 2003;18(1):15–24. and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. Eur J Pers. 4. Nelissen PTJH, Hülsheger UR, van Ruitenbeek GMC, Zijlstra 2003;17(S1):S5–S18. https ://doi.org/10.1002/per.481. FRH. Lending a helping hand at work: a multilevel investigation 19. Stajkovic AD, Luthans F. Self-efficacy and work-related perfor - of prosocial motivation, inclusive climate and inclusive behavior. mance: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 1998;124(2):240–261. https J Occup Rehabil. 2017;27(3):467–476. https ://doi.org/10.1007/ ://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240. s1092 6-016-9680-z. 20. Holwerda A, Groothoff JW, de Boer MR, van der Klink JJL, Brou- 5. Jahoda M. Work, employment, and unemployment: val- wer S. Work-ability assessment in young adults with disabilities ues, theories, and approaches in social research. Am Psy- applying for disability benefits. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35(6):498– chol. 1981;36(2):184–191. http://psy cn e t.apa.or g/doiLa nding 505. https ://doi.org/10.3109/09638 288.2012.70284 6. ?doi=10.1037%2F000 3-066X.36.2.184 21. Lagerveld SE, Bültmann U, Franche RL, van Dijk FJH, Vlasveld 6. Paul KI, Batinic B. The need for work: Jahoda’s latent functions MC, van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, et al. Factors associated with of employment in a representative sample of the German popula- work participation and work functioning in depressed workers: a tion. J Organ Behav. 2009;31(1):45–64. https ://doi.org/10.1002/ systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(3):275–292. https job.622. ://doi.org/10.1007/s1092 6-009-9224-x. 7. Vornholt K, Uitdewilligen S, Nijhuis FJN. Factors affecting the 22. Hinkin TR. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for acceptance of people with disabilities at work: a literature review. use in survey questionnaires. Organ Res Methods. 1998;1(1):104– J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(4):463–475. https ://doi.org/10.1007/ 121. https ://doi.org/10.1177/10944 28198 00100 106. s1092 6-013-9426-0. 23. Byington E, Felps W. Why do IQ scores predict job perfor- 8. Zijlstra F, Mulders H, Nijhuis F. Inclusieve organisaties. Op weg mance? Res Organ Behav [Internet]. 2010;30:175–202. https :// naar duurzame arbeidsparticipatie. [Inclusive organisations. On doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.08.003. the road to sustainable labor participation]. Tijdschr voor Arb. 24. Greig TC, Nicholls SS, Bryson GJ, Bell MD. The vocational 2012;28(1):22–30. cognitive rating scale: a scale for the assessment of cognitive 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation functioning at work for clients with severe mental illness. J Vocat participating in supported employment. Psychosoc Rehabil J. Rehabil. 2004;21(2):71–81. 1995;18(4):115–128. https ://doi.org/10.1037/h0095 476. 25. Barrick MR, Mount MK. The big five personality dimensions and 37. Cunningham K, Wolbert R, Brockmeier MB. Moving beyond the job performance: a meta analysis. Pers Psychol. 1991;44(1):1–26. illness: factors contributing to gaining and maintaining employ- https ://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb006 88.x. ment. Am J Commun Psychol. 2000;28(4):481–494. http://www. 26. Wanberg CR, Hough LM, Song Z. Predictive validity of a mul-ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubme d/10965 387. tidisciplinary model of reemployment success. J Appl Psychol. 38. Frayne CA, Geringer JM. Self-management training for 2002;87(6):1100–1120. improving job performance: a field experiment involving 27. de Vries RE, Lee K, Ashton MC. The Dutch HEXACO person- salespeople. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85(3):361–372. https ://doi. ality inventory: psychometric properties, self-other agreement, org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.361. and relations with psychopathy among low and high acquaint- 39. Calsbeek H, Rijken P, Van Berge GP, Henegouwen M, Dekker J. anceship dyads. J Pers Assess. 2008;90(2):142–151. https ://doi. In Calsbeek H, editor. Factor structure of the Coping Inventory org/10.1080/00223 89070 18451 95. for Stressful Situations (CISS-21) in adolescents and young adults 28. Bosscher RJ, Smit JH. Confirmatory factor analysis of the general with chronic digestive disorders. The social position of adoles- self-efficacy scale. Behav Res Ther. 1998;36(3):339–343. https:// cents and young adults with chronic digestive disorders. Utrecht: doi.org/10.1016/S0005 -7967(98)00025 -4. Nivel; 2003. p. 83–103. https ://dspac e.libr a r y .uu.nl/bits t r eam/ 29. Chen G, Gully SM, Eden D. General self efficacy and self-esteem: handl e/1874/497/c5.pdf;jsess ionid =222F6 24813 9C81D 7B20A toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated 6D23F 263DF 2E?seque nce=9. self evaluations. J Organ Behav. 2004;25(3):375–395. https://doi. 40. Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. London: Sage; org/10.1002/job.251 2009. 30. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behav - 41. Pallant J. SPSS survival manual. New York: McGraw-Hill Educa- ioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191–215. https ://doi. tion; 2013. org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191. 42. Connelly BS, Ones DS. An other perspective on personality: 31. Locke EA. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. Pers Psychol. Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predic- 1977;50(3):801. tive validity. Psychol Bull. 2010;136(6):1092–1122. https ://doi. 32. Folkman S, Lazarus R. An analysis of coping in a middle-aged org/10.1037/a0021 212. community sample. J Health Soc Behav. 1980;21(3):219–239. 43. Furr M. Scale construction and psychometrics for social and per- http://www.jstor .org/stabl e/21366 17?origi n=cross ref. sonality psychology. London: Sage; 2011. 33. Schreurs PJG, Van de Willige G, Brosschot JF, Tellegen B, Graus 44. Briggs SR, Cheek JM. The role of factor analysis in the develop- G. De Utrechtse Coping lijst: Omgaan met problemen en gebeur- ment and evaluation of personality scales. J Pers. 1986;54(1):106– tenissen. [The Utrecht Coping list: Dealing with problems and 148. https ://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb003 91.x. events]. 1993. 45. De Vellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. J Educ 34. Calsbeek H, Rijken M, Bekkers MJTM, Van Berge Henegou- Meas. 1991;31(1):79–82. wen GP, Dekker J. Coping in adolescents and young adults 46. Iacobucci D. Structural equations modeling: fit Indices, sample with chronic digestive disorders: impact on school and leisure size, and advanced topics. J Consum Psychol. 2010;20(1):90–98. activities. Psychol Health. 2006;21(4):447–462. https ://doi.https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003 org/10.1080/14768 32050 04109 10. 47. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 35. Michon HW, Van Weeghel J, Kroon H, Schene AH. Illness self- Hilsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1988. management assessment in psychiatric vocational rehabilitation. 48. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2011;35(1):21–27. https://www .ncbi.nlm.nih. concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge; gov/pubme d/21768 074. 2016. 36. Alverson M, Becker DR, Drake RE. An ethnographic study of coping strategies used by people with severe mental illness 1 3 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Springer Journals

The Development of an Instrument to Measure the Work Capability of People with Limited Work Capacity (LWC)

Free
12 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/the-development-of-an-instrument-to-measure-the-work-capability-of-0u7Tfql60O
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by The Author(s)
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; Rehabilitation; Occupational Medicine/Industrial Medicine; Health Psychology; Clinical Psychology
ISSN
1053-0487
eISSN
1573-3688
D.O.I.
10.1007/s10926-018-9774-x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose Participation in regular paid jobs positively affects mental and physical health of all people, including people with limited work capacities (LWC), people that are limited in their work capacity as a consequence of their disability, such as chronic mental illness, psychological or developmental disorder. For successful participation, a good fit between on one hand persons’ capacities and on the other hand well-suited individual support and a suitable work environment is necessary in order to meet the demands of work. However, to date there is a striking paucity of validated measures that indicate the capability to work of people with LWC and that outline directions for support that facilitate the fit. Goal of the present study was therefore to develop such an instrument. Specifically, we adjusted measures of mental ability, conscientiousness, self- efficacy, and coping by simplifying the language level of these measures to make the scales accessible for people with low literacy. In order to validate these adjusted self-report and observer measures we conducted two studies, using multi-source, longitudinal data. Method Study 1 was a longitudinal multi-source study in which the newly developed instrument was administered twice to people with LWC and their significant other. We statistically tested the psychometric properties with respect to dimensionality and reliability. In Study 2, we collected new multi-source data and conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results Studies yielded a congruous factor structure in both samples, internally consistent measures with adequate content validity of scales and subscales, and high test–retest reliability. The CFA confirmed the factorial validity of the scales. Conclusion The adjusted self-report and the observer scales of mental ability, conscientiousness, self-efficacy, and coping are reliable measures that are well-suited to assess the work capability of people with LWC. Further research is needed to examine criterion-related validity with respect to the work demands such as work-behaviour and task performance. Keywords Work capacity assessment · Ability to work · People with limited mental work capacity · Intellectual disabilities · Low literacy Introduction capacity of people with LWC. Their limitations vary from developmental disorders (67%), mental illnesses (19%) and In Europe there is growing understanding of the economic somatic disability (14%), and half of this group deals with and psychological importance of labour participation of a combination of disorders [1]. Although the nature and people with limited work capacity (LWC). People with severity of the limitations differ from person to person, the LWC concern a very wide and diverse group of people that majority of people with LWC experience difficulties with has, similar to the general population, the right to labour important cognitive skills that affect the capability to work, participation stated by the International Covenant on Civil such as concentration, memory recall, setting priorities, and Political Rights (1966). Unfortunately, fundamental and problem solving [2]. Furthermore, they often have dif- disabilities and restrictions overshadow the talent and work ficulties with understanding and remembering job related procedures or instructions, interactions with coworkers, lack persistence in order to complete the work, and adapt * Gemma M. C. van Ruitenbeek and act independently (Social Security Administration in gemma.vanruitenbeek@maastrichtuniversity.nl [3]). Nevertheless, they are entitled to get the support they Department of Work and Social Psychology, Faculty need in order to participate in work [4]. Several scholars of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, have highlighted the economic and psychological values P. O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation of participation in work [5–8]. In addition, more recently to their limitations, people with LWC may not be able to research of Schuring et al. [9] showed that people from the critically reflect on themselves and to provide accurate target group with a paid job evaluated their mental health, answers in self-report questionnaires. However, we believe happiness, self-worth and mastery significantly higher than that people with LWC will be able to reflect on themselves people who stayed unemployed. Moreover, their level of with the help of tailored measures. For this reason, it is all independency increased, while the use of care decreased as the more important to tailor the measures to this specific a result of labour participation. target group and adapt the language. Moreover, to address Notwithstanding their limitations, the majority of people concerns of professionals in the field, we argue that it is with LWC are capable to provide a productive contribution important to use other sources of information in combination dependent on adequate support [10] and a suitable job [11]. with information provided by the target person (the person We argue that self-report instruments can enable people with with LWC). A unique feature of the instrument we devel- LWC to identify their respective strengths and weaknesses oped in the present endeavour is therefore that it consists of and that such an instrument is indispensable for their suc- a self-report (of the target person) and an observer version cessful integration into the labour market. However, up to that is to be completed by one or more significant others. date tailored self-report instruments for selection and sup- These are individuals who know the target person well, such port practices of people with LWC are lacking in human as relatives or people who work or have worked with the resource practices. The existing instruments that have been target person. developed for the general population are not always suitable In sum, this project aims to develop a customized instru- for people with LWC, since they often deal with low literacy ment that measures the mental work capability of people or lack in mental ability to understand the language that is with LWC, in order to enhance the individual support that used in most questionnaires. For instance, people with autis- is given by co-workers or supervisors in the daily work tic symptoms face problems with metaphorical language. practice on the work floor. As such, the present instrument Moreover, people with mental disorders such as attention extends and supplements existing tools with more thera- deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often face difficulties peutic foci (e.g. the Occupational Therapy Practice Frame- in concentrating over longer periods of time, which makes work or Model of Human Occupation). For example, the it difficult for them to complete extensive instruments. For present instrument can be used as a tool that can facilitate these reasons we adapted existing instruments in order to the transition process from clinical support to support in develop an instrument that assesses the mental work capabil- daily practice. ity of people with LWC, and that can help to identify their In this study, we combine knowledge from the disciplines respective strengths and weaknesses. First, such an instru- of work and organizational psychology and occupational ment can inform selection and placement decisions. Second, rehabilitation. In doing so, we not only build upon this it sheds light on areas in which people with LWC require knowledge but also make important contributions to them. training or need specific support on the work floor. Third, The work and organizational psychology literature has built it can help people with LWC to reflect on their strengths up a solid knowledge base on how personal characteristics and weaknesses, which will promote their professional and (personality traits, mental abilities) relate to work perfor- personal development. As described above, it is crucial that mance [13–19]. However, this line of research has only con- people with LWC are enabled to reflect on their strengths sidered the general population, while ignoring the specifics and weaknesses in order to develop a certain level of self- of individuals with LWC. In the occupational rehabilitation understanding. Timmer et al. [12] claim that self-reflection literature, the specifics of individuals with LWC are well enables people with LWC to take on more responsibility and understood, but the role of personal characteristics like initiative, and increases their autonomy. Goal of the present personality traits and mental capabilities with employment study is therefore to present the development and initial vali- outcomes has received far less attention [20, 21]. Recently dation of an instrument to assess the mental work capability also in this discipline occupational rehabilitation, studies of people with LWC. have been conducted on the relation between personality Typically, measures used in Human Resources Manage- traits and work productivity of people with mental disorders. ment for selection and developmental purposes are self- Nevertheless, we argue that both disciplines can benefit from report measures. Naturally, the validity and usefulness of tailored and validated measures to study more accurately such measures is dependent on the extent to which individu- relationships between personality traits and work perfor- als are willing and able to reflect on themselves, their feel- mance in this specific population. ings, experiences, behaviour, and respond to the respective items. Yet, professionals in the field of integration of people with LWC on the regular labour market, such as job coaches and vocational experts, regularly express concerns that due 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation of mental ability depends on the level of job complex- Method ity [15]. An important question in this respect is: which cognitive skills predict work performance of people with Based on the work and organizational psychology litera- limited work capacity? Fadyl et al. [2] argue that cogni- ture we first selected specific scales which we expected to tive skills that clearly affect the work ability of workers be predictive of future work behaviour in our target group. who experience impairment(s) are: attention, concentra- We adapted existing measures of mental ability, conscien- tion, memory, planning and organizing, problem solving, tiousness, self-efficacy and coping to people with LWC. initiation, communication and adapting. The Vocational In the interest of this particular target group, of which the Cognitive Ratings Scale (VCRS) [24] includes these ele- majority deals with fundamental disabilities and restric- ments. The VCRS is designed for people with chronic tions, we chose not only to select predictors from the per- mental illness in order to assess their cognitive strengths sonality literature (i.e., mental ability, conscientiousness, and weaknesses in actual work settings, and by that, sug- and self-efficacy), but also a coping measure. Since the gest areas for improvement. We therefore argue that the nature and severity of the disability can differ from person VCRS can be helpful in our line of research and expect to person, we deem their coping-style of greater predictive that mental ability measured with an adapted version of importance than the nature or severity of their disability. the VCRS can be an important predictor of work perfor- In order to assess the psychometric properties of these mance of people with LWC. customized self-report and observer scales, we follow Conscientiousness is considered as the second most pow- Hinkin’s [22] steps for scale development. Specifically, erful predictor with respect to work performance in various we conducted two studies: the first study consisted of two levels of professions and jobs after mental ability [14, 16, phases. First, we developed the instrument and assessed 17]. Barrick and Mount [25] stated that conscientiousness the comprehensibility of scales for people with LWC. reflects all traits that are important to fulfil all kinds of task Second, we assessed the psychometric properties such as in all kinds of professions. People with high levels of con- dimensionality and reliability. In the second study the fac- scientiousness are seen as trustworthy, careful and cautious, torial validity was investigated. have high orientation to accomplish tasks [26], are reliable and goal-oriented [16], responsible, and hardworking [25]. Since we seek to identify powerful predictors of success at Study 1: Instrument Development, Dimensionality work in various low level work settings and jobs, conscien- and Reliability tiousness seems to be precisely that personal characteristic that is essential for the success in work of people with LWC. Measures In this study the Dutch HEXACO personality inventory [27] was tailored to people with LWC. In this section we describe the theoretical basis for the Various researchers have indicated that self-efficacy is an selection of various scales. The concepts of mental abil- important predictor of work behaviour and other important ity, conscientiousness, self-efficacy and coping will be work related outcomes, such as job performance [18, 19]. discussed. Furthermore, we will elaborate on the process However, this has only been studied in the general popula- of assessing the face validity and evaluating the clarity tion. Self-efficacy reflects an individuals’ tendency to rely of the language used in the scales for people with a low- on one’s ability to meet job demands in different work con- literacy level. texts [19, 28, 29]. Self-efficacy can be seen as trust in one’s General mental ability (GMA) [14] or general cogni- effectiveness. The self-efficacy theory of Bandura [30, 31] tive ability [13] refers to individuals’ capability for logical assumes that efficacy determines the type of action people reasoning, solving problems, making decisions, abstract take, the level of effort they put in and their persistency [28]. thinking, and the ability to learn [15]. GMA or IQ [23] We think that in particular the level of effort that people are is generally considered as the most valid predictor of job willing to invest and their persistency are important predic- performance [13–15]. However, the nature of work and tors of work success of people with LWC. In this study we its context determine how important mental ability is. For adapted the GSES-12 scale of Bosscher [28] to people with complex tasks, mental ability is often more relevant than LWC. for simple tasks. Simple or routinized tasks rely less on Coping refers to the cognitive and behavioural effort that problem solving behaviour, and require less abstract think- people display in order to control, bear or reduce the effects ing and decision making. As a consequence, mental abil- of internal or external stressors [32, 33]. It is an action that ity has less predictive power for low-complexity than for is triggered as a result of the (re)appraisal of stressors [32]. high-complexity jobs. It goes without saying that all tasks Coping can be seen as a dynamic and continuous process of require some level of mental ability, but the required level self-regulation. It encompasses actions that are undertaken 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation on a daily basis to master or reduce the impact of any kind Minor changes have been made in the language of the of threat (i.e. disease, disorder or limitation) [34]. Find- questionnaire. For example: “I’d rather do something spon- ing and in particular keeping a job are to a considerable taneously, instead of working according to a set plan.” has extent dependent on the effectiveness of the self-regulation been changed in: “I’d rather do something as it comes to my or coping strategies of people with serious mental illness mind, instead of working according to a set plan.” [35–37]. Other authors have also indicated how important All original scales discriminate v fi e score options and the self-regulation or self-management are as predictors of the majority used five-point Likert-scales. Since a Likert-type development in job-performance [38]. Although these stud- scale is most used in behavioural research [22], we chose ies have been conducted in the general population we think this type of scaling for all scales. Furthermore, in order to that coping is an even more important predictor of success keep answering a questionnaire as easy as possible, all scales for people with LWC, since many of them are dealing with were designed in a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 = some- serious restrictions and disabilities they have to overcome. times, 3 = regularly, 4 = almost always, 5 = always). For that reason, the shortened coping inventory for stressful situations (CISS-21) [39] was adopted and adjusted for the Participants and Procedure use with people with LWC. After the selection of the concepts described above, we We administered our survey twice on several schools for took into account the general guidelines for item develop- youngsters of our target group: schools for special educa- ment [22]. Statements were formulated as simple and as tion (N at T was 35 and N at T was 31 students), schools 1 2 short as possible, and translated to a language level that for practical education and a remedial educational centre (N is intelligible for people with LWC. Since a large part of at T was 75 and N at T was 68 students), and a school for 1 2 people with LWC struggles with low-literacy and/or lacks vocational training for low-complexity jobs (N at T was 68 the mental ability to understand complex language that con- and N on T was 46 students). In total 178 (56.2% male) stu- tains figurative language or double negatives, existing rat- dents participated at T and 145 (56.6% male) students at T . 1 2 ing scales for mental ability [24], conscientiousness [27], Participants had a mean age of 17.5 (SD = 1.6) at T and 17.4 self-efficacy [28], and coping [39] were adjusted to meet a (SD = 1.5) at T . In total 172 significant others participated low-literacy level. Items were formulated at language level at T and 136 at T . The significant others who participated 1, 2 B1 (simple Dutch), figurative and non-literal language was varied from parent (N at T was 16, N at T was 15), supervi- 1 2 avoided and items address only one single issue to assure sor (N at T was 11, N at T was 9), mentor (N at T was 127, 1 2 1 appropriate interpretation of items by the respondents. N at T was 95), to teacher (N at T was 18, N at T was 17). 2 1 2 A pre-test was conducted to assess the adequacy of the Participants were informed about the procedure and their scales and to test whether people from the target group were rights with respect to the research. If students were above able to read and interpret the items correctly. First, the rel- 18 years old and fully accountable, they signed an informed evance for practice and the suitability of the language level consent themselves. Otherwise, their guardian signed the of the questionnaire for the target group was discussed in informed consent. After oral information on the study was two focus groups consisting of professionals in the field, given and questions were answered, students completed the such as job coaches and vocational experts. Second, 16 questionnaire in a classroom under supervision of the first people from the target group completed the questionnaire author. The study was approved by the faculty’s standing individually under supervision of the first author. In order ethical committee for psychology of Maastricht University to check their ability to read the items, we asked them to (reference ECP-133- 08_10_2013). read questions out loud. To test the correct interpretation, we asked them to explain the meaning of randomly chosen Analytic Strategy questions. Moreover, people from the target group were also asked how they experienced the completion of the ques- In order to statistically test the psychometric properties of tionnaire, and what their opinion was about the readability the self-report and observer scale and avoiding memory and appropriateness of the questionnaire. Feedback from effects, we administered the same questionnaire twice with these processes has been incorporated in the questionnaires. an interval of 3 months to a group of people with LWC and Examples of changes made based on the feedback from to a ‘significant other’ of the respondent (such as a parent professionals in the field concerned; explication of what is or mentor). Subsequently, we subjected the data to explora- meant by “organizing work efficiently”. We split this item tory factor analysis (EFA) to explore the dimensionality of up into several items referring to concrete actions, such as: scales, and we calculated internal consistency of scales and “I prepare things, before I start my work”, “I complete tasks subscales. Furthermore, we determined the test–retest reli- in a logical order.”, “I check whether I have done my work ability, and we computed the correlation between the scores correctly.”, and “I correct my mistakes.” of the respondent and the significant others. To examine the 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation appropriateness of the adapted scales for people with low observer ratings. Moreover, we explored the self-intimate mental capacity and low literacy, we did both an exploratory relationship (e.g. parents, partner, family or friends) correla- factor analysis (EFA) and assessed the test–retest reliability. tion, and the self-work-related relationship (e.g. job supervi- We applied EFA to assess whether underlying dimensions sor, supervisor, personal coach or colleague) correlation. As of the new scales were consistent with the dimensions in previous research has revealed differences in the accuracy of the original scales, and to see whether the dimensionality observer ratings of personality dependent on the frequency in both samples corresponded. Moreover, EFA was used to of interacting with targets [42], we explored the self-intimate reduce the number of items in order to create a parsimoni- relationship correlation and the self-work-related relation- ous set of variables [22]. We separately subjected the items ship correlation. In order to calculate these correlations, we of the different measures (mental ability, conscientious- created dummy variables for intimate relationship and for ness, self-efficacy and coping) of the target group and the work-related relationship. SPSS version 24 was used for all group of significant others sample to principal components these calculations. analysis (PCA) a technique for EFA. After inspection of the correlation matrix that demonstrated that components were related, we subjected the conscientiousness and self-efficacy scale to initial PCA with oblique rotation. The mental abil- Results ity scale and the coping scale were subjected to initial PCA with orthogonal rotation because the component correla- Since the original VCRS scale [24] lacks factor structural tion matrix showed that components of both scales were information we ran an initial PCA on a 23-item scale in not related. Primarily extraction was based on the factor which the extraction was based on Eigenvalues exceeding structure of the original scale, and since the original men- Kaiser’s criterion of 1. Examination of the correlation matrix tal ability scale lacks a clear factor structure the extraction on inter-item correlations of variables showed no correla- was based on Eigenvalues exceeding Kaiser’s criterion of 1. tion between one item and all other variables in the student First, we examined if the Kaiser–Meyer–Olin (KMO) cri- sample that justified deletion of this item from the analysis. terion exceeded the acceptable limit of .5 [40] and checked After deletion of this item and repetition of the procedure, whether the Barletts’ Test of Sphericity reached statistical PCA resulted in a five-factor model for the mental ability significance on the different scales in both samples. Subse- scale in both samples (i.e. self-report and observer report). quently, we examined the correlation matrix on inter-item These five factors refer to five of the eight cognitive skills correlations of variables. A lack of correlation between a that Fadyl et al. [2] recognised as important cognitive skills variable and other variables justifies deletion of that item that can interfere with work functioning such as concentra- [41]. Based on this absence of inter-item correlation we tion, memory, planning and organizing, problem solving, deleted one item from the mental ability scale and one from and adapting. Moreover, based on congruity between the the conscientiousness scale. After deletion of these items loadings of items on components in the target group sample we repeated the PCA procedure. Subsequently, we explored and loadings of items on component in the significant others the congruity between the loadings of items on components sample, we retained all five components. After inspection of of the original scales and loadings of items on components the rotated component matrix we rejected five items, because of the newly developed scales. When congruity with the they had no or relatively low loading on the factor they original scales was lacking we based the evaluation process belong to in terms of content or did not load on a congruent about the retention of the number of components on inspec- component in both samples. After rejection of those items tion of the scree plots graphs. Additionally, when scree plots and repetition of the procedure, the five-factor model with showed unclear dimensionality we ran a Monte Carlo Par- 17 items explained in total 65.35% of the variance in the allel PCA parallel analysis [Watkins, 2000 in [41]. Next, target group sample, with planning & organisation, learning we assessed the test–retest reliability by exploring the rela- & memory, adaptability, concentration, and problem solving, tionship between two sets of scores on the scales that were contributing ranging from 33.16 to 5.78%. In the significant administered twice to the same people at T and 3 month other sample the model explained in total 72.21%, with vari- later (T ). We performed preliminary analysis to determine ances ranging from 39.67 to 6.16% for the subscales. A more the assumption of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity detailed overview of factor loadings is given in Table 1, and [41]. We calculated the relationship between the measure- a detailed overview of item loadings on components can be ments with the Pearsons product-moment correlation coef- obtained from the authors. ficient and for the non-parametric correlations Spearman’s The internal consistency reliability of the mental ability rho. We indicated the reliability or the accuracy of scales scale (17 items) was .88 with alphas for the five subscales with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Finally, we calculated the ranging from .72 to .84 in the self-report scale, and respec- self-other correlation in order to explore the accuracy of the tively .91 ranging from .74 to .90 in the observer scale. 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 1 3 Table 1 Results of principal component analysis, internal consistency, test–retest reliability and self-other correlation Scale and Number of Remaining Number of Target group sample (N = 178) Test– Significant others sample (N = 172) Test– Self-other subscales items original items components retest retest correla- Cumm % Eigen values % of variance α Cumm % Eigen values % of variance α scale of new scales reliabil- reliabil- tion of vari- of vari- ity target ity signifi- ance ance group cant other Mental abil- 23 17 5 65.36 .87 .76** 72.21 .90 .62** .43** ity Planning & – 7 5.637 33.16 .84 .63** 6.743 39.67 .88 .60** .39** organisa- tion Learning & – 4 1.898 11.16 .74 .47** 1.725 10.15 .82 .56** .25** memory Adaptability – 2 1.372 8.07 .76 .53** 1.233 7.25 .74 .50** .21** Concentra- – 2 1.222 7.19 .75 .69** 1.528 8.99 .90 .63** .28** tion Problem – 2 0.982 5.78 .72 .65** 1.048 6.16 .75 .29** .20** solving Conscien- 10 8 1 41.26 3.301 41.26 .80 .72** 59.60 4.768 59.60 .90 .78** .35** tiousness Self-efficacy 12 10 2 50.61 .79 .79** 65.24 .88 .75** .37** Persistency – 6 3.455 34.55 .79 .69** 4.956 49.57 .92 .75** .32** Self-confi- – 4 1.606 16.06 .68 .72** 1.567 15.67 .73 .65** .26** dence Coping 21 19 (7) 3 57.19 .85 .67** 80.74 .25 .57** – Emotion- 8 8 (2) 4.713 29.46 .88 .75** 1.363 19.47 .79 .57** – oriented Task-oriented 7 7 (3) 2.808 17.55 .86 .69** 3.000 42.86 .86 .64** – Avoidance 4 2 (2) 1.775 10.19 .64 .68** 1.289 18.42 .69 .53** – Originally ten items and four factors: organization (2), diligence (2), perfectionism (3), prudence (3) [27] Originally 12 items and 3 factors initiative (3), effort (5) and persistence (4) [28] Number of items significant others scale The scale is normally distributed in the target group sample and non-normally distributed in the significant other sample, the Spearman’s rho and Pearson correlations are respectively .35 and .36 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation The test–retest reliability of the complete mental ability from .68 to .79 for the self-report scale and respectively scale (17 items) was r = .76, with correlation coefficients for .88 and ranging from .73 to .92 for the observer scale. the five subscales ranging from .47 to .69 for the self-report The test–retest reliability of the complete self-efficacy scale and respectively r = .62 and ranging from .29 to .63 for scale was r = .79 with correlation coefficients’ varying in the observer scale. the subscales between .69 and .79 for the self-report scale The self-other correlation for the mental ability scale was and r = .75 and from .65 to .75 for the observer scale. .43, .53 for the intimate relationship and .43 for the work- The self-other correlation for the self-efficacy scale was related relationship, and for the subscales varying from .20 .37, .83 for the intimate relationship and .35 for the work- to .39 the self-other correlation, varying from .42 to .62 for related relationship, and the self-other correlation for the the intimate relationship, and varying from .16 to .38 for the subscales varied from .26 to .32, varying from .43 to .61 work-related relationship. for the intimate relationship, and varying from .24 to .30 We executed initial PCA of the conscientiousness scale for the work-related relationship. in which extraction was forced to four components in cor- The self-report scale and observer scale differed to a respondence with the original scale. Congruity between the large extent, because we only included observable items loadings of items on components of the original scale and in the observer scale. For that reason, the initial self-report loadings of items on components of the newly developed scale included 21 items, whereas the observer coping scale scale was lacking in both samples. The scree plot showed included seven items. Nevertheless, we performed initial a clear large drop between the first eigenvalue and the sec- PCA of the self-report and observer coping scale, extrac- ond, followed by a tailing off in both samples, which led to tion was forced to three components in correspondence the conclusion that the self-report scales and the observer with the original coping scale. In the observer sample all scale for conscientiousness are unidimensional [43]. A one- items loaded in accordance with the three original compo- factor solution for the conscientiousness scale with 8 items nents of the CISS-21 [39], whereas in the self-report sam- explained in total 37.37% of the variance in the target group ple only two originally avoidance coping items loaded on sample and respectively 56.55% in the significant others the emotion-oriented coping component. We rejected these sample. two items on this conflicting content ground. A repetition The internal consistency of the complete conscientious- of the procedure after rejection of these two items resulted ness scale was α = .80 for the self-report scale and α = .90 in a three-component solution with 19 items that explained for the observer scale. The correlation coefficient of the 55.30% of the variance, with emotion-oriented coping, conscientiousness scale was r = .72 for the self-report scale task-oriented coping, and avoidance coping contributing and r = .78 observer scale. The self-other correlation for the varying from 28.74 to 9.34% for the self-report coping conscientiousness scale was .35 varying from .46 for the scale. The three-component solution for the observer- intimate relationship to .34 for the work-related relationship. report coping scale with seven items explained 80.74% of We carried out an initial PCA of the self-efficacy scale the variance, with task-oriented coping, emotion-oriented in which extraction was forced to three components in cor- coping and avoidance coping contributing varying form respondence with the original scale. Congruity between the 42.86 to 18.42%. loadings of items on components of the original scale and The internal consistency of the complete coping scale loadings of items on components of the self-efficacy scale (19 items) was .86, with alpha for the two subscales rang- was lacking in both samples. The scree plot graphs were ing from .64 to .88 for the self-report scale, and respec- unclear, and thus we doubted the dimensionality of the scale. tively .25, with alpha for the three subscales ranging from Therefore, we ran additional an Monte Carlo Parallel PCA .69 to .86 for the observer scale. parallel analysis [Watkins, 2000 in 41], that led us to the The test–retest reliability of the coping scale was r = .67 conclusion of a two-dimensional model of the self-efficacy with correlation coefficients varying in the subscales scale in both samples. We repeated the PCA procedure in between .68 and .75 for the self-report scale, and respec- which extraction of two components was forced. Two items tively r = .57 with correlation coefficients’ varying in the did not load on a congruent component in a two factor struc- subscales between .53 and .64 for the observer scale. Addi- tured model. For that reason, those items were rejected. A tionally, the inter-item correlation of the four-item avoid- two-factor model with ten items explained in total 50.61% of ance coping subscale was examined because the Cronbach the variance, with persistency contributing 34.55% and self- value was smaller than .7. The mean inter-item correlation confidence contributing 16.06% in the target group sample was .31, which is an optimal inter-item correlation accord- and respectively 65.24, 49.57 and 15.67% in the significant ing to Briggs and Cheek [44]. others sample. The internal consistency of the self-efficacy scale in total was .79, with alpha for the two subscales ranging 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Finally, we calculated the self-other correlation in order Discussion to assess the accuracy of the observer ratings. Even though results show relatively low self-other correlations, this rela- In this first study we executed EFA to assess whether under - tively low accuracy level can be clarified by the fact that ling dimensions of the new scales were consistent with the more than 90% of the observers were work-related observ- dimensions in the original scales, and if the dimensionality ers that accounted for relatively small correlations levels, of self-reports and observer-reports corresponded. Since while only 10% of the intimate-relation observers accounted there is no factor structure indicated of the original VCRS for medium to large correlations. These results correspond scale [24] in the literature, the consistency with the original with former research findings. A meta-analysis of Connelly scale could not be assessed. However, results showed similar and Ones [42] showed that differences in accuracy in rating dimensionality in the adapted mental ability scale in both, personality traits is dependent on interpersonal intimacy, the the target group sample and the significant others sample. higher the frequency of interacting with the target, the higher Although our results indicated that the dimensionality the accuracy. of the adapted conscientiousness scale and the adapted self-efficacy scale do not correspond with the original Study 2: Testing Factorial Validity scales, EFA indicated corresponding dimensionality in the conscientiousness scale and in the self-efficacy scale Measures in both, the target group sample and the significant others sample. Differences in factor structure between the newly We used the measures for mental ability, conscientiousness, developed and the original scales can be explained by the self-efficacy and coping resulting from the above described fact that we substantially changed the original scales. We exploratory factor analysis to test their factorial validity. deem the fact that the factor structure show correspond- ing dimensionality in both samples of greater importance. Participants and Procedure Furthermore, the factor structure of the self-report coping scale and the observer coping scale corresponded with the In order to test the factorial validity new data was collected original coping scale. Although, the number of items in on several schools (e.g. schools for practical education and the self-report scale and the observer scale differ largely, a school for low-level vocational training) for youngsters we found similar factor patterns in both samples, and items of our target group (20%), and in training centres for work loaded on corresponding dimensions. of people with LWC (80%). Questionnaires consisting of The test–retest correlation of scores on the scales that the tailored sales for mental ability, conscientiousness, self- were completed twice by the same people at T , and at T 1 2 efficacy and coping that resulted from study 1, were admin- indicated low to high correlations for both, the self-report istered to people from the target group and their significant scale and the observer scale. Longer time lags (> 1 month) others. The target group sample consisted of 264 individuals yield lower test–retest correlations (r < .70). Test–retest cor- (61.7% male). The mean age of the participants was 26.72 relations of > .5 over longer intervals appear to be reasonable (SD = 9.86). The education level of the respondents varied for personality traits [45]. Only one self-report subscale and from: 7.6% lack a diploma, 50.8% followed a low level of one observer subscale yielded a small test–retest correlation. education, 31.8% finished a secondary vocational education, Except for two subscales, the Cronbach’s alpha coef- 2.8% finished higher levels, for 7.2% the level of educa- ficients of the majority of the self-report scales and sub- tion is missing. The significant others sample consisted of scales exceeded .7 indicating good internal consistency 221 individuals. Their relation to the target group varied [45]. The two exceptions concern two subscales with two from intimate (59, 5%, such as a parent, partner or family and four items respectively, both subscales showed an opti- member), personal coach (23.1%), to work related relation mal mean inter-item correlation. (17.2%, such as job coach, work supervisor or internship With respect to the observer scales, excluding one cop- supervisor). ing subscale, all scales and subscales showed internal consistency. The lack of internal consistency of the total Analytic Strategy coping scale can be explained by the fact that the total observer scale consists only of seven items that reflect In order to assess the quality of the factor structure, we three different dimensions of coping. Moreover, two sub- applied confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) on the new data scales of coping show good internal consistency. And using Mplus Version 7.2. The CFA procedure consisted of although the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the third fac- an interactive process in which we evaluated the measure- tor was slightly below the cut-off point of .7, it showed an ment models resulting from study 1 by examination of fit optimal inter-item correlation. indices, such as the Chi square test, the Comparative Fit 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis Fit Index (TLI, also known Subsequently, we conducted CFA to test one-factor struc- as the Non-Normed Fit Index NNFI), the root mean square ture of the conscientiousness scale. The fit indices primar - of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized square ily indicated a poor fit in the self-report scale (N = 264). residual (SRMR). If necessary we revised the models based After inspection of the modification indices, we included on modification indices that derived from analyses, and one residual covariance to the model. The close relation afterwards, we re-evaluated the effects of the modifications. between the two items could be explained by the fact that these two items were composed of one double-barrelled item in the original conscientiousness scale. The model improved Results influential after this adaptation: Chi square test χ (19, N = 264) = 27.99, p = .084, CFI = .974, TLI = .962, RMSEA We performed CFA to cross-validate the five-factor structure (90% CI) = .042 (.000–.074) and SRMR = .041. Primarily of the mental ability scale. Examination of fit indices indi- CFA showed a poor also for the observer conscientiousness cated a reasonable fit for the self-report scale (N = 260) (see scale. After examination of the modification indices we Table 2). However, inspection of the modification indices allowed the same residual covariance as in the self-report indicated that a better fit could be obtained by inclusion of a scale. The model fit indices improved after the modifica - residual covariance to the model. We accepted this residual tion: Chi square test χ (19) = 36.17, p = .010, CFI = .977, covariance because both items are largely similar (‘I know TLI = .966, RMSEA (90% CI) = .064 (.031–.096) and which task is most important.’ and ‘The most important task SRMR = .033. I do first.’). The model fit indices improved influential after After performing CFA on the two-factor structure of the this adaptation: Chi square test χ (108, N = 260) = 192.48, self-efficacy scale the fit indices indicated a good fit for both, p = .000, CFI = .949, TLI = .936, RMSEA (90% CI) = .055 the self-report scale and the observer scale. The fit indices (.042–.067) and SRMR = .046. The fit indices primarily were respectively for the self-report self-efficacy scale: Chi showed also a reasonable fit for five-factor structure the square test χ (34, N = 262) = 55.45, p = .012, CFI = .968, observer scale of mental ability. After inspection of the mod- TLI = .957, RMSEA (90% CI) = .049 (.023–.072) and ification indices, we included the same residual covariance SRMR = .048, and of the observer self-efficacy scale: Chi included as we allowed in the self-report scale. The model square test χ (34, N = 208) = 59.86, p = .004, CFI = .9782, fit indices improved slightly after these adaptations: Chi TLI = .963, RMSEA (90% CI) = .60 (.034–.085) and square test χ (108, N = 221) = 227.81, p = .000, CFI = .942, SRMR = .036. TLI = .927, RMSEA (90% CI) = .073 (.059–.086) and CFA on the self-report coping scale resulted primar- SRMR = .046. ily in a poor fit. However, after inspection of we stepwise Table 2 Fit indices confirmatory factor analysis Scale Sample Model Chi square test χ df CFI TLI RMSEA (90% CI) SRMR Mental ability Target group (N = 260) Model derived from EFA 241.86 109 .920 .901 .068 (.057–.080) .049 a,g Modified model 180.83 107 .956 .944 .052 (.038–.064) .045 Significant other (N = 211) Model derived from EFA 423.05 142 .880 .855 .097 (.086–.108) .065 a,g Modified model 227.81 108 .942 .927 .073 (.059–.086) .046 Conscientiousness Target group (N = 264) Model derived from EFA 61.17 20 .883 .836 .088 (.064–.114) .054 Modified model 28.22 19 .974 .961 .043 (.000–.074) .041 Significant other (N = 219) Model derived from EFA 65.22 20 .940 .915 .102 (.075–.130) .042 c,g Modified model 36.17 19 .977 .966 .064 (.031–.096) .033 d,g Self-efficacy Target group (N = 262) Model derived from EFA 55.45 34 .968 .957 .049 (.023–.072) .048 Modified model – – – – – – Significant other (N = 208) Model derived from EFA 59.86 34 .972 .963 .060 (.034–.085) .036 Modified model – – – – – – Coping Target group (N = 264) Model derived from EFA 467.17 149 .826 .800 .090 (.081–.099) .107 a,g Modified model 164.29 100 .952 .942 .049 (.035–.063) .068 Significant other (N = 221) Model derived from EFA 15.13 11 .993 .986 .041 (.000–.087) .034 Modified model – – – – – – a b c d e f p = .000; p = .079; p = .010; p = .012; p = .004; p = .567 g 2 χ /df ≤ 3.0 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation removed three problematic items since these items cross- to the language level of people with LWC. The pre-test loaded on factors, which indicate that these items did not yielded face validity and gave confidence that the scales reflect clearly the underling psychological construct. More - were appropriate for people with LWC. EFA yielded con- over, we included one residual covariance to the model. gruent factor structures of the adapted scales in both samples The close relation of these two items could also be clari- and high test–retest reliability, indicating that people with fied by the fact that also these two items consisted of one LWC are equally able to complete the questionnaires as their double-bared item in the original coping scale [39]. The significant other. Moreover, the scales and subscales that fit indices improved influential: Chi square test χ (100, evolved from EFA possess adequate internal consistency and N = 264) = 164.29, p = .000, CFI = .952, TLI = .942, RMSEA observers accuracy correspond with former research. Based (90% CI) = .049 (.035–.063) and SRMR = .068. The good- study 1 we concluded the developed scales to be appropri- ness of fit indices indicated a good fit of the observer cop- ate and reliable measures for people with LWC and their ing scale. Chi square test χ (11, N = 221) = 15.13, p = .567, significant other. CFI = .993, TLI = .986 showed mediocre results, RMSEA Finally, we explored factorial validity in study 2. CFA (90% CI) = .041 (.000–.087) and SRMR = .034. results indicated that factorial validity was established and demonstrated that measures performed as intended. The modifications in scales after CFA only slightly affected fac- Discussion tor loadings, internal consistencies, and the test–retest reli- abilities. The final instrument with its psychometric proper - For the evaluation of the goodness of fit, we examined fit ties is provided can be obtained from the authors. indices such as the Chi square test. The smaller the Chi In sum, these studies yielded high test–retest reliability, square, the better the fit [22], small non-significant Chi adequate internal consistent scales with reasonable to good square values suggest a small misfit, while large significant fitting factor models for both, the self-report scales and the Chi square values suggest a large misfit. Since the Chi square observer scales. test is sensitive for the sample size, we verified the fit of the To conclude, we developed reliable well-suited measures 2 2 models with a relative high χ and significant χ as advo- that can help people with LWC to reflect on their strengths cated; we divided the χ by its degrees of freedom [Kline, and weaknesses as a requirement for their personal and pro- 2004 in 46]. All adjusted models demonstrated reasonable fessional development. It is an instrument that, in addition to fits since the statistic adjusted by its degrees of freedom do the already existing more therapeutic tools, that is expected not exceed 3.0. Furthermore, additional indices like CFI, to be useful in facilitating the transition from clinical sup- TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR were included in our goodness of port to support in daily work practice. More specific, this fit examination. Also these results meet the general guide- tool can strengthen methodical action of professionals in the lines [43–45, 47, 48] and showed well-fitting models for field with respect to the individual support of people with the self-report self-efficacy scale, the observer self-efficacy LWC. The self-report and the observer questionnaire can be scale, and the observer coping scale without any adapta- completed online or with paper and pencil. The duration of tion. The two conscientiousness scales showed good fits completion varies within the target group from 15 to 45 min, after minor adaptations. The self-report and observer scales and for the significant other 15 min on average. for mental ability, and the self-report coping scale showed Further research is needed to examine criterion-related reasonable to good fits after relatively few adaptations. validity with respect to the work demands such as work behaviour and task performance. General Discussion Labour participation is a necessity for all adults. Therefore, Limitations and Future Research also people with limitations are entitled to participate on the labour market at their own level of capacity. An instrument Although this multi-source data- and multi-phase study that can indicate the mental work capability of people with assured that the adapted scales possess content validity and LWC is lacking. Therefore, this study concerned the devel- internal consistency reliability, we were not able to assess opment of a work capability self-report and observer meas- convergent and discriminant validity due to the limitations in ure that can outline directions to address support in order the level of literacy of the target group. Moreover, this study to encourage the development of self-reflection of people does not cover the final step for scale validation of Hinkin with LWC and enhance occupational rehabilitation practices. [22]. Further research is required in order assess criterion- We conducted two studies. In the first study scales for related validity in order to explore if the measures possess mental ability, conscientiousness, self-efficacy and coping predictive validity with respect to work behaviour or work were selected on theoretical base, and subsequently adapted performance. 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Funding This work was supported by the Dutch Employee Insurance 9. Schuring M, Reeuwijk K, Burdorf A. Het monitoren van arbeids- Agency UWV. toeleiding van mensen met grote afstand tot de arbeidsmarkt en gezondheidsproblemen eindrapportage. [Monitoring job guidance of people with a large distance to the labor market and health Compliance with Ethical Standards problems, final report]. 2016. http://www.oval.nl/cms/files/2016- 05/eindrappor t age-monitor -voorbeeldp r ojecten-er asmusmc-apr il Conflict of interest Authors declare that they have no conflict of inter - -2016.pdf. Accessed 3 Apr 2017. est. 10. Villotti P, Corbière M, Dewa CS, Fraccaroli F, Sultan-Taïeb H, Zaniboni S, et al. A serial mediation model of workplace social Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human support on work productivity: the role of self-stigma and job ten- participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the insti- ure self-efficacy in people with severe mental disorders. Disabil tutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Rehabil. 2017. https ://doi.org/10.1080/09638 288.2017.13772 94. declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. 11. van Ruitenbeek GMC, Mulder MJGP, Zijlstra FRH, Nijhuis FJN, Mulders HPG. Een alternatieve benadering voor herontwerp van Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all partici- werk. Ervaringen met de methode Inclusief Herontwerp Werk- pants. Participants who were above 18 years old and fully account- processen. [An alternative approach for work redesign: experi- able, signed an informed consent themselves. Otherwise, their guardian ences with the method ‘Inclusive Redesign of Work Processes’] signed the informed consent. Gedrag Organ. 2013;26:104–122. 12. Timmer JT, Dekker K, Voortman H. Eigen Initiatief Model, Theorie en praktijk. [Self Initiative Model, Theory and prac- Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Crea- tice]. LKNG; 2003. http://www.kenni splei ngeha ndica ptens ector tive Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat iveco .nl/g ehan dicap tenzo r g/Pr odu ct-Eig en -Initi atief -Model .html. mmons.or g/licenses/b y/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu- Accessed 31 May 2015. tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate 13. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. The validity and utility of selection credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychol Bull. 1998;124(2):262–274. http://psy cn e t.apa.or g/buy/1998-10661 -006 14. Schmidt FL, Hunter J. General mental ability in the world of work: occupational attainment and job performance. J Pers Soc Psychol. References 2004;86(1):162–173. https ://doi.or g/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162. 15. Gottfredson LS. Why g matters: the complexity of everyday life. 1. UWV. Kerngegevens Wajong Feiten en cijfers. [Core data Wajong Intelligence 1997;24(1):79–132. http://linki nghub .elsev ier.com/ Facts and figures of the Dutch Employee Insurance Agency]. retri eve/pii/S0160 28969 79001 43. 2015. https ://www.uwv.nl/zakel ijk/Image s/kerng egeve ns-wajon 16. Barrick MR, Mount MK, Judge TA. Personality and performance g.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2017. at the beginning of the new millennium: what do we know and 2. Fadyl JK, Mcpherson KM, Schlüter PJ, Turner-Stokes L. Fac- where do we go next? Int J Sel Assess. 2001;9(1–2):9–30. https tors contributing to work-ability for injured workers: literature ://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00160. review and comparison with available measures. Disabil Reha- 17. Salgado JF, Viswesvaran C, Ones DS. Predictors used for person- bil. 2010;32(14):1173–1183. https://doi.or g/10.3109/0963828100 nel selection: an overview of constructs. In: Anderson N, Ones 36533 02. DS, Sinangil HK, Viswesvaran C, editors. Handbook of indus- 3. MacDonald-Wilson KL, Rogers ES, Massaro J. Identifying rela- trial, work and organizational psychology. London: Sage; 2001. tionships between functional limitations, job accommodations, p. 165–199. and demographic characteristics of persons with psychiatric dis- 18. Bono JE, Judge TA. Core self-evaluations: a review of the trait abilities. J Vocat Rehabil. 2003;18(1):15–24. and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. Eur J Pers. 4. Nelissen PTJH, Hülsheger UR, van Ruitenbeek GMC, Zijlstra 2003;17(S1):S5–S18. https ://doi.org/10.1002/per.481. FRH. Lending a helping hand at work: a multilevel investigation 19. Stajkovic AD, Luthans F. Self-efficacy and work-related perfor - of prosocial motivation, inclusive climate and inclusive behavior. mance: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 1998;124(2):240–261. https J Occup Rehabil. 2017;27(3):467–476. https ://doi.org/10.1007/ ://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240. s1092 6-016-9680-z. 20. Holwerda A, Groothoff JW, de Boer MR, van der Klink JJL, Brou- 5. Jahoda M. Work, employment, and unemployment: val- wer S. Work-ability assessment in young adults with disabilities ues, theories, and approaches in social research. Am Psy- applying for disability benefits. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35(6):498– chol. 1981;36(2):184–191. http://psy cn e t.apa.or g/doiLa nding 505. https ://doi.org/10.3109/09638 288.2012.70284 6. ?doi=10.1037%2F000 3-066X.36.2.184 21. Lagerveld SE, Bültmann U, Franche RL, van Dijk FJH, Vlasveld 6. Paul KI, Batinic B. The need for work: Jahoda’s latent functions MC, van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, et al. Factors associated with of employment in a representative sample of the German popula- work participation and work functioning in depressed workers: a tion. J Organ Behav. 2009;31(1):45–64. https ://doi.org/10.1002/ systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(3):275–292. https job.622. ://doi.org/10.1007/s1092 6-009-9224-x. 7. Vornholt K, Uitdewilligen S, Nijhuis FJN. Factors affecting the 22. Hinkin TR. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for acceptance of people with disabilities at work: a literature review. use in survey questionnaires. Organ Res Methods. 1998;1(1):104– J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(4):463–475. https ://doi.org/10.1007/ 121. https ://doi.org/10.1177/10944 28198 00100 106. s1092 6-013-9426-0. 23. Byington E, Felps W. Why do IQ scores predict job perfor- 8. Zijlstra F, Mulders H, Nijhuis F. Inclusieve organisaties. Op weg mance? Res Organ Behav [Internet]. 2010;30:175–202. https :// naar duurzame arbeidsparticipatie. [Inclusive organisations. On doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.08.003. the road to sustainable labor participation]. Tijdschr voor Arb. 24. Greig TC, Nicholls SS, Bryson GJ, Bell MD. The vocational 2012;28(1):22–30. cognitive rating scale: a scale for the assessment of cognitive 1 3 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation functioning at work for clients with severe mental illness. J Vocat participating in supported employment. Psychosoc Rehabil J. Rehabil. 2004;21(2):71–81. 1995;18(4):115–128. https ://doi.org/10.1037/h0095 476. 25. Barrick MR, Mount MK. The big five personality dimensions and 37. Cunningham K, Wolbert R, Brockmeier MB. Moving beyond the job performance: a meta analysis. Pers Psychol. 1991;44(1):1–26. illness: factors contributing to gaining and maintaining employ- https ://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb006 88.x. ment. Am J Commun Psychol. 2000;28(4):481–494. http://www. 26. Wanberg CR, Hough LM, Song Z. Predictive validity of a mul-ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubme d/10965 387. tidisciplinary model of reemployment success. J Appl Psychol. 38. Frayne CA, Geringer JM. Self-management training for 2002;87(6):1100–1120. improving job performance: a field experiment involving 27. de Vries RE, Lee K, Ashton MC. The Dutch HEXACO person- salespeople. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85(3):361–372. https ://doi. ality inventory: psychometric properties, self-other agreement, org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.361. and relations with psychopathy among low and high acquaint- 39. Calsbeek H, Rijken P, Van Berge GP, Henegouwen M, Dekker J. anceship dyads. J Pers Assess. 2008;90(2):142–151. https ://doi. In Calsbeek H, editor. Factor structure of the Coping Inventory org/10.1080/00223 89070 18451 95. for Stressful Situations (CISS-21) in adolescents and young adults 28. Bosscher RJ, Smit JH. Confirmatory factor analysis of the general with chronic digestive disorders. The social position of adoles- self-efficacy scale. Behav Res Ther. 1998;36(3):339–343. https:// cents and young adults with chronic digestive disorders. Utrecht: doi.org/10.1016/S0005 -7967(98)00025 -4. Nivel; 2003. p. 83–103. https ://dspac e.libr a r y .uu.nl/bits t r eam/ 29. Chen G, Gully SM, Eden D. General self efficacy and self-esteem: handl e/1874/497/c5.pdf;jsess ionid =222F6 24813 9C81D 7B20A toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated 6D23F 263DF 2E?seque nce=9. self evaluations. J Organ Behav. 2004;25(3):375–395. https://doi. 40. Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. London: Sage; org/10.1002/job.251 2009. 30. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behav - 41. Pallant J. SPSS survival manual. New York: McGraw-Hill Educa- ioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191–215. https ://doi. tion; 2013. org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191. 42. Connelly BS, Ones DS. An other perspective on personality: 31. Locke EA. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. Pers Psychol. Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predic- 1977;50(3):801. tive validity. Psychol Bull. 2010;136(6):1092–1122. https ://doi. 32. Folkman S, Lazarus R. An analysis of coping in a middle-aged org/10.1037/a0021 212. community sample. J Health Soc Behav. 1980;21(3):219–239. 43. Furr M. Scale construction and psychometrics for social and per- http://www.jstor .org/stabl e/21366 17?origi n=cross ref. sonality psychology. London: Sage; 2011. 33. Schreurs PJG, Van de Willige G, Brosschot JF, Tellegen B, Graus 44. Briggs SR, Cheek JM. The role of factor analysis in the develop- G. De Utrechtse Coping lijst: Omgaan met problemen en gebeur- ment and evaluation of personality scales. J Pers. 1986;54(1):106– tenissen. [The Utrecht Coping list: Dealing with problems and 148. https ://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb003 91.x. events]. 1993. 45. De Vellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. J Educ 34. Calsbeek H, Rijken M, Bekkers MJTM, Van Berge Henegou- Meas. 1991;31(1):79–82. wen GP, Dekker J. Coping in adolescents and young adults 46. Iacobucci D. Structural equations modeling: fit Indices, sample with chronic digestive disorders: impact on school and leisure size, and advanced topics. J Consum Psychol. 2010;20(1):90–98. activities. Psychol Health. 2006;21(4):447–462. https ://doi.https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003 org/10.1080/14768 32050 04109 10. 47. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 35. Michon HW, Van Weeghel J, Kroon H, Schene AH. Illness self- Hilsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1988. management assessment in psychiatric vocational rehabilitation. 48. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2011;35(1):21–27. https://www .ncbi.nlm.nih. concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge; gov/pubme d/21768 074. 2016. 36. Alverson M, Becker DR, Drake RE. An ethnographic study of coping strategies used by people with severe mental illness 1 3

Journal

Journal of Occupational RehabilitationSpringer Journals

Published: Jun 4, 2018

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 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

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

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off