IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v51y2017i1d10.1007_s11135-016-0313-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of two measures of work functioning in a population of claimants with physical and psychological injuries

Author

Listed:
  • A. Chambers

    (Institute for Work & Health)

  • P. M. Smith

    (Institute for Work & Health
    University of Toronto
    Monash University)

  • M. R. Sim

    (Monash University)

  • A. D. LaMontagne

    (Deakin University)

Abstract

Research has focused on advancing our understanding of strategies to improve return to work outcomes following a physical injury. There has been limited research on the different types of supports needed for workers returning to work following a psychological injury. Developing a better understanding of work limitations when people are back at work is a key step in the development of strategies in this area. Unfortunately, measurement tools have been established separately by injury type, limiting research opportunities to compare differences in work limitations. In this article, we compare two measures of work functioning in a population of claimants that have returned to work following a musculoskeletal or psychological injury: a modified version of the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ) developed for workers with physical injuries and the Lam Employed Absence Productivity Scale (LEAPS) developed for workers with mental health claims. A telephone questionnaire was administered to 214 claimants who returned to work following a claim for a psychological injury or a musculoskeletal injury. While the modified WLQ detected differences in work limitations by injury type, there were no significant differences in levels of work functioning detected by the LEAPS. The comparison demonstrated the value of including questions about work limitations that go beyond mental and interpersonal demands for claimants with psychological injuries; however, there is also a need to limit questions about physical constraints. A modified version of the WLQ is recommended to further our understandings of the similarities and differences in the experiences of workers with psychological versus physical injuries.

Suggested Citation

  • A. Chambers & P. M. Smith & M. R. Sim & A. D. LaMontagne, 2017. "Comparison of two measures of work functioning in a population of claimants with physical and psychological injuries," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 425-434, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:51:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-016-0313-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-016-0313-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-016-0313-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-016-0313-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elamara Marama de Araújo Vieira & Jonhatan Magno Norte da Silva & Wilza Karla dos Santos Leite & Ruan Eduardo Carneiro Lucas & Luiz Bueno da Silva, 2022. "Team Workload and Performance of Healthcare Workers with Musculoskeletal Symptoms," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-13, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:51:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-016-0313-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.