Cited by 6Psychometric Methodologies and TestingOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Psychometric Properties of the Worker Role Interview (Version 10.0) in Mental Health

Open access
Lohss, Isabel, Forsyth, Kirsty, Kottorp, Anders·2012·British Journal of Occupational Therapy

Abstract

Introduction: Occupational therapists working in psychiatry are routinely required to undertake vocational assessments and to support clients into work. To make such efforts successful, the use of evidence-based practice and outcome measures is becoming increasingly important. Objectives: The objectives were to examine the psychometric properties of the Worker Role Interview (WRI, version 10.0) with a psychiatric population in the United Kingdom, particularly its construct validity as a baseline assessment and an outcome measure. Method: Data were collected from 34 psychiatric clients rated by seven occupational therapists. Rasch analysis was used to examine scale validity, validity of therapists' rating patterns of clients, rater consistency, precision of client measurement and the scale's aptitude in detecting different ability levels. Results: All items except one demonstrated acceptable goodness-of-fit to the Rasch model. Over 90% of clients fitted the model. The scale detected five ability levels, but client measures were slightly imprecise. Raters used the scale consistently and implications of rater leniency are discussed. Conclusion: The study provides evidence of construct validity, supporting the use of the WRI as a standardised baseline assessment in a mental health population. Further development of the WRI might be indicated and its usefulness as an outcome measure should be tested with larger samples.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4276/030802212x13336366278095

Cites

26 of 26 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lohss, I., Forsyth, K., & Kottorp, A.
Affiliations
  • Training Manager, Out of the Blue Arts and Education Trust, Edinburgh
  • Queen Margaret University (GB)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Lohss, Isabel
Venue
British Journal of Occupational Therapy
Published
2012-04
Volume
75
Issue
4
Pages
171-179
ISSN
  • 0308-0226 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-6006
OpenAlex
W2119262152
Cited by
6
References
26
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Occupational Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • Queen Margaret University Publications Repository (Queen Margaret University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften digital collection (Zurich University of Applied Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Queen Margaret University Publications Repository (Queen Margaret University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
psychometric properties, construct validity, occupational therapy, psychiatric patients, vocational assessment, return to work, outcome measures, rater leniency, Rasch analysis, mental health

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