Cited by 2,515Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

The Work and Social Adjustment Scale: a simple measure of impairment in functioning

Open access
Mundt, James C., Marks, Isaac M., Shear, M. Katherine, Greist, John M.·2002·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Patients' perspectives concerning impaired functioning provide important information. Aims: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). Method: Data from two studies were analysed. Reliability analyses included internal scale consistency, test – retest and parallel forms. Convergent and criterion validities were examined with respect to disorder severity. Results: Cronbach's α measure of internal scale consistency ranged from 0.70 to 0.94. Test – retest correlation was 0.73. Interactive voice response administrations of the WSAS gave correlations of 0.81 and 0.86 with clinician interviews. Correlations of WSAS with severity of depression and obsessive–compulsive disorder symptoms were 0.76 and 0.61, respectively. The scores were sensitive to patient differences in disorder severity and treatment-related change. Conclusions: The WSAS is a simple, reliable and valid measure of impaired functioning. It is a sensitive and useful outcome measure offering the potential for readily interpretable comparisons across studies and disorders.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1192/bjp.180.5.461

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • WSAS scores are positively correlated with the grading of depressive symptoms, with mean WSAS scores of 25, 15.5, and 6.5 corresponding to major depression, mild to moderate depression, and subclinical symptoms, respectively.

    “In addition, a positive correlation has been found between WSAS and the grading of depressive symptoms [52]: a mean WSAS score of 25 coincides with major depression (measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale), a mean score of 15.5 corresponds with mild to moderate depression, and a mean WSAS of 6.5 indicates subclinical symptoms.”

    From Measuring the Effect of the Early assessment Team (MEET) for patients referred to outpatient mental health care: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [52]

    The Scale validity section reports a positive correlation between WSAS and Hamilton depression ratings. Criterion discrimination gives the three mean WSAS scores as 25.0, 15.5 and 6.5, but labels the highest symptom group “moderate to severe,” not “major depression.” Page numbers are not supplied in the passages. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For patients with obsessive compulsive disorder or depression, a WSAS total score of 20-40 indicates moderate to severe psychopathology, 10-20 is associated with failure in functional level but not severe symptoms, and less than 10 is not associated with clinical populations.

    “For patients with obsessive compulsive disorder or depression, a WSAS total score of 20–40 is reported to indicate moderate to severe psychopathology, a score of 10–20 is associated with failure in functional level but not with severe symptoms, while scores less than 10 are not associated with clinical populations [52].”

    From Measuring the Effect of the Early assessment Team (MEET) for patients referred to outpatient mental health care: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [52]

    Split into 3 atoms — 2 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The WSAS is reliable and valid in typically developing individuals.

    “The Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) 60 is a five-item self-report measure of impaired functioning that has been found to be reliable (Cronbach ' s α = 0.7 -0.94) and valid in typically developing individuals.”

    From Guided self-help for depression in autistic adults: The ADEPT feasibility RCT (2019) · cites this paper as [60]

    The Abstract reports Cronbach’s α of 0.70–0.94 and concludes that the WSAS is reliable and valid. However, the Method describes treatment studies involving patients, and “WSAS used with other populations” says its use had been limited to patients with depression, anxiety or alcohol misuse disorders. The paper does not establish reliability and validity in typically developing individuals. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The WSAS is a valid and reliable self-report measure of a person's perceived functional impairment attributable to an identified problem.

    “The Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) is a valid and reliable self-report measure of a person's perceived functional impairment attributable to an identified problem (Mundt et al., 2002), in this case, MS.”
  • WSAS has high internal reliability and sensitivity to change.

    “The scale has been found to have high internal reliability and sensitivity to change.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Goodman, 1989, TheYale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale, II, Archives of General Psychiatry, 46, 1011

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mundt, J. C., Marks, I. M., Shear, M. K., & Greist, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Healthcare Technology Systems (US)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Mundt, James C.
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2002-05
Volume
180
Issue
5
Pages
461-464
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2096230543
Cited by
2,515
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 188 · 2025: 201 · 2024: 221 · 2023: 234 · 2022: 204 · 2021: 227 · 2020: 160 · 2019: 134 · 2018: 112 · 2017: 116 · 2016: 106 · 2015: 93 · 2014: 88 · 2013: 89 · 2012: 61
FWCI
16.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Pfizer
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
Work and Social Adjustment Scale, impaired functioning, social adaptation, work functioning, psychometric validation, reliability statistics, validity, depression severity, obsessive-compulsive disorder, patient-reported outcomes, treatment outcome assessment
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Social Adjustment, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review