Content validity of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) for persons with spinal cord injury: A mixed methods study

4Citations
Citations of this article
49Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Study design: Mixed methods. Objectives: The aim of our study was to investigate the content validity of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) for use in persons with post-acute and chronic spinal cord injury (SCI). Setting: A university-based Rehabilitation Center in The Netherlands. Methods: Contents of the WORQ, brief ICF core sets for SCI for post-acute care and for chronic situation were compared with semi-guided interviews with persons with SCI and controlled for relevance by SCI rehabilitation professionals in two group meetings. Results: Fourteen interviews with persons with SCI were performed. Two group meetings with 8 and 9 SCI rehabilitation professionals were held. Thirty seven of the 46 ICF categories (80%) of the WORQ were confirmed by both sources: mentioned in interviews with persons with SCI and considered important by the SCI professionals. The remaining 9 categories (20%) were confirmed by either the persons with SCI or the SCI professionals. Fourteen ICF categories that are part of the brief ICF core set for SCI for acute care and/or chronic situation, however are not part of the WORQ, have revealed importance by persons with SCI and SCI professionals. Conclusion: Our study confirms that most categories of the WORQ are important to consider for VR in persons with SCI, however, there are ICF categories that are absent in the WORQ and deemed relevant for use in VR in persons with SCI. Consequently, the content validity of the WORQ without additional items is insufficient for persons with SCI.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Roels, E. H., Schneider, C. C. I., Reneman, M. F., & Post, M. W. M. (2022). Content validity of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) for persons with spinal cord injury: A mixed methods study. Spinal Cord, 60(4), 354–360. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-021-00738-x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free