Validity and Reliability of the Upper Extremity Work Demands Scale

Validity and Reliability of the Upper Extremity Work Demands Scale Purpose To evaluate validity and reliability of the upper extremity work demands (UEWD) scale. Methods Participants from different levels of physical work demands, based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles categories, were included. A historical database of 74 workers was added for factor analysis. Criterion validity was evaluated by comparing observed and self-reported UEWD scores. To assess structural validity, a factor analysis was executed. For reliability, the difference between two self-reported UEWD scores, the smallest detectable change (SDC), test–retest reliability and internal consistency were determined. Results Fifty-four participants were observed at work and 51 of them filled in the UEWD twice with a mean interval of 16.6 days (SD 3.3, range = 10–25 days). Criterion validity of the UEWD scale was moderate (r = .44, p = .001). Factor analysis revealed that ‘force and posture’ and ‘repetition’ subscales could be distinguished with Cronbach’s alpha of .79 and .84, respectively. Reliability was good; there was no significant difference between repeated measurements. An SDC of 5.0 was found. Test–retest reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient for agreement = .84) and all item-total correlations were >.30. There were two pairs of highly related items. Conclusion Reliability of the UEWD scale was good, but criterion validity was moderate. Based on current results, a modified UEWD scale (2 items removed, 1 item reworded, divided into 2 subscales) was proposed. Since observation appeared to be an inappropriate gold standard, we advise to investigate other types of validity, such as construct validity, in further research. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Springer Journals

Validity and Reliability of the Upper Extremity Work Demands Scale

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/validity-and-reliability-of-the-upper-extremity-work-demands-scale-1IEuAWBlQF
Publisher
Springer US
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 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/s10926-016-9683-9
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate validity and reliability of the upper extremity work demands (UEWD) scale. Methods Participants from different levels of physical work demands, based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles categories, were included. A historical database of 74 workers was added for factor analysis. Criterion validity was evaluated by comparing observed and self-reported UEWD scores. To assess structural validity, a factor analysis was executed. For reliability, the difference between two self-reported UEWD scores, the smallest detectable change (SDC), test–retest reliability and internal consistency were determined. Results Fifty-four participants were observed at work and 51 of them filled in the UEWD twice with a mean interval of 16.6 days (SD 3.3, range = 10–25 days). Criterion validity of the UEWD scale was moderate (r = .44, p = .001). Factor analysis revealed that ‘force and posture’ and ‘repetition’ subscales could be distinguished with Cronbach’s alpha of .79 and .84, respectively. Reliability was good; there was no significant difference between repeated measurements. An SDC of 5.0 was found. Test–retest reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient for agreement = .84) and all item-total correlations were >.30. There were two pairs of highly related items. Conclusion Reliability of the UEWD scale was good, but criterion validity was moderate. Based on current results, a modified UEWD scale (2 items removed, 1 item reworded, divided into 2 subscales) was proposed. Since observation appeared to be an inappropriate gold standard, we advise to investigate other types of validity, such as construct validity, in further research.

Journal

Journal of Occupational RehabilitationSpringer Journals

Published: Nov 15, 2016

References

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


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

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

Enjoy affordable access to
over 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