Cited by 3,071Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMedical Practices and RehabilitationMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

The Validity and Reproducibility of a Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument

Reilly, Margaret C., Zbrozek, Arthur S., Dukes, Ellen M.·1993·PharmacoEconomics

Abstract

The construct validity of a quantitative work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) measure of health outcomes was tested for use in clinical trials, along with its reproducibility when administered by 2 different methods. 106 employed individuals affected by a health problem were randomised to receive either 2 self-administered questionnaires (self administration) or one self-administered questionnaire followed by a telephone interview (interviewer administration). Construct validity of the WPAI measures of time missed from work, impairment of work and regular activities due to overall health and symptoms, were assessed relative to measures of general health perceptions, role (physical), role (emotional), pain, symptom severity and global measures of work and interference with regular activity. Multivariate linear regression models were used to explain the variance in work productivity and regular activity by validation measures. Data generated by interviewer-administration of the WPAI had higher construct validity and fewer omissions than that obtained by self-administration of the instrument. All measures of work productivity and activity impairment were positively correlated with measures which had proven construct validity. These validation measures explained 54 to 64% of variance (p less than 0.0001) in productivity and activity impairment variables of the WPAI. Overall work productivity (health and symptom) was significantly related to general health perceptions and the global measures of interference with regular activity. The self-administered questionnaire had adequate reproducibility but less construct validity than interviewer administration. Both administration methods of the WPAI warrant further evaluation as a measure of morbidity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reilly, M. C., Zbrozek, A. S., & Dukes, E. M.
Affiliations
The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US)
Venue
PharmacoEconomics
Published
1993-11
Volume
4
Issue
5
Pages
353-365
ISSN
1170-7690 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2086325363
Cited by
3,071
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 204 · 2025: 284 · 2024: 297 · 2023: 262 · 2022: 246 · 2021: 251 · 2020: 214 · 2019: 183 · 2018: 174 · 2017: 136 · 2016: 132 · 2015: 115 · 2014: 122 · 2013: 77 · 2012: 69
FWCI
3.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PharmacoEconomics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
Work Productivity and Activity Impairment, construct validity, reproducibility, self-administered questionnaire, work impairment, morbidity measurement, clinical trial outcome measures
MeSH terms
Absenteeism, Adult, Clinical Trials as Topic, Efficiency, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Work, Reproducibility of Results

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