The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire v2.0 Showed Consistent Factor Structure Across Six Working Samples.
Femke I Abma, Ute Bültmann, Benjamin C Amick Iii and 6 others
PMID 28889328WHAT IT FOUND
The questionnaire's separate areas of work functioning worked consistently across working samples, but a single overall score did not behave the same everywhere.
Use the separate area scores when comparing workers.
Key findings
01The questionnaire's five areas of work functioning fitted consistently across the samples.
02The overall score was less consistent, because physical demands and flexibility demands behaved differently in some samples.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they found
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The samples were all from the Netherlands, so the results may not apply to other countries. Few clinical groups were included, so it is unclear whether the questionnaire behaves the same for conditions such as musculoskeletal problems. Heavily manual jobs were underrepresented, which may matter because physical demands are more present in manual work. Job type could only be compared broadly as manual or non-manual, not by specific occupation. The common mental disorder sample lacked the flexibility demand items, so it was not included in the multi-group model. Some item pairs and cross-loadings had to be allowed for the model to fit well in certain samples.
The easy way to misread this
Do not use one overall WRFQ score as if it means the same thing for every worker. The paper found that physical demands and flexibility demands contributed differently to the overall score in some samples.