Cited by 6Medical Practices and RehabilitationMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationOccupational Therapy Practice and Research

The psychometric properties of the German version of the new Worker Role Interview (WRI-G 10.0) in people with musculoskeletal disorders

Open access
Köller, B., Niedermann, K., Klipstein, A., Haugboelle, J.·2011·Work

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Occupational therapists play an important role in work rehabilitation in getting people with chronic disabilities back to work. The Worker Role Interview (WRI) is intended to detect psychosocial and environmental factors influencing the ability to return to work for injured or disabled workers. This study examined the psychometric properties of the recently modified German version (WRI-G, 10.0) in a population with work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) in Switzerland. METHODS: Data were gathered from 20 participants with work-related MSD. The interviews were conducted face-to-face and videotaped. Five occupational therapists, trained in the use of the WRI-G, independently rated all 20 interview recordings following the official manual. Thus, 100 ratings were analysed by use of Rasch analysis to test construct validity and transform ordinal raw data into linear data (person locations) for interrater-reliability calculations. RESULTS: All items fit the Rasch model, except the item 'perception of boss'. The final WRI-G, consisting of 15~items, showed good overall model fit (X2 = 54.66, p = 0.04); excellent person-separation reliability (PSI 0.91) and high inter-rater reliability (mean ICC 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this sample, the WRI-G (10.0) is a valid and reliable instrument to assess psychosocial ability for return to work in a population with work-related MSD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3233/wor-2011-1252

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Köller, B., Niedermann, K., Klipstein, A., & Haugboelle, J.
Affiliations
  • Zurich University of Applied Sciences, School of Health Professions, Institute for Occupational Therapy, Switzerland
  • University Hospital Zurich (CH)
  • University College Absalon (DK)
Venue
Work
Published
2011
Volume
40
Issue
4
Pages
401-410
ISSN
1051-9815 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1476448533
Cited by
6
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Work (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften digital collection (Zurich University of Applied Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Universität Zürich
  • Universitätsspital Zürich
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
Keywords
work-related musculoskeletal disorders, return to work, psychosocial factors, occupational therapy, German adaptation, construct validity, inter-rater reliability, Rasch analysis, person separation reliability, vocational rehabilitation
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Musculoskeletal Diseases, Occupational Diseases, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Switzerland, Work Capacity Evaluation, 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