Predictive value and construct validity of the work functioning screener‐healthcare (WFS‐H)

Abstract

Objectives: To test the predictive value and convergent construct validity of a 6-item work functioning screener (WFS-H). Methods: Healthcare workers (249 nurses) completed a questionnaire containing the work functioning screener (WFS-H) and a work functioning instrument (NWFQ) measuring the following: cognitive aspects of task execution and general incidents, avoidance behavior, conflicts and irritation with colleagues, impaired contact with patients and their family, and level of energy and motivation. Productivity and mental health were also measured. Negative and positive predictive values, AUC values, and sensitivity and specificity were calculated to examine the predictive value of the screener. Correlation analysis was used to examine the construct validity. Results: The screener had good predictive value, since the results showed that a negative screener score is a strong indicator of work functioning not hindered by mental health problems (negative predictive values: 94%-98%; positive predictive values: 21%-36%; AUC:.64-.82; sensitivity: 42%-76%; and specificity 85%-87%). The screener has good construct validity due to moderate, but significant (p<.001), associations with productivity (r=.51), mental health (r=.48), and distress (r=.47). Conclusions: The screener (WFS-H) had good predictive value and good construct validity. Its score offers occupational health professionals a helpful preliminary insight into the work functioning of healthcare workers.

The association of subjective fit perceptions, distress, emotional exhaustion, and work engagement, with work functioning problems: A cross-sectional study conducted among young construction project management professionals

“…Furthermore, the reseach so far showed that emotional exhaustion may be a predictor of work functioning problems 3 . Furthermore, work engagement (ie, the positive work‐related psychological state of well‐being that is conceptualized by vigor, dedication and absorption 15 ), as the distinct concept that is negatively related to burnout and the predictor of well‐being and work motivation demonstrated in many studies (eg, Christian et al 16 ), was found to be only marginally related to work functioning problems by Abma and colleagues 11,12 . Accordingly, due to the mixed study findings so far it is important to conduct additional research on the predictors of the work functioning of workers.…”

“…8,9 Most studies on work functioning problems addressed the measurement properties of instruments relevant for recording work functioning. 2,[10][11][12] To date, only a handful of studies have addressed correlates of work functioning, including personal factors such as self efficacy, 8 health-related factors such as emotional exhaustion, distress, fatigue, depressive, and cognitive syptoms, 3,8,13,14 as well as work-related factors such as work engagement, job content, supervisor social support, and organizational support. 8,13,14 These studies on predictors of work functioning problems of workers so far showed mixed results.…”

“…3 Furthermore, work engagement (ie, the positive work-related psychological state of well-being that is conceptualized by vigor, dedication and absorption 15 ), as the distinct concept that is negatively related to burnout and the predictor of well-being and work motivation demonstrated in many studies (eg, Christian et al 16 ), was found to be only marginally related to work functioning problems by Abma and colleagues. 11,12 Accordingly, due to the mixed study findings so far it is important to conduct additional research on the predictors of the work functioning of workers. Furthermore, it is important to cross-examine the contribution of work engagement as a motivational state to work functioning beyond health-related variables, such as distress and emotional exhaustion, to have a better understanding of the relevance of work engagement to work functioning problems.…”

Diagnostic Accuracy and Measurement Properties of Instruments Screening for Psychological Distress in Healthcare Workers—A Systematic Review

“…Seventeen studies covering eight instruments screening for psychological distress in HCWs were included in this review [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ] ( Table 1 and Supplementary File S3 ). These are the work functioning screener-healthcare (WFS-H) [ 17 ], the Burnout Battery [ 18 ], the Physician well-being index (PWBI) [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ] the Professional quality of Life (ProQOL) [ 16 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 ], the Burnout–thriving index [ 26 ], the single-item burnout [ 19 , 27 , 29 , 32 ] and the Professional fulfilment index (PFI) [ 24 , 31 ]. The sample sizes of the HCWs included in the studies varied from 249 to 7288.…”

“…The index test for Hansen’s single-item burnout was judged as ‘low risk’ [ 27 ] and remaining instruments as ‘high risk’. The flow and timing of the WFS-H [ 17 ], Burnout inventory index [ 26 ] and PFI [ 31 ] were judged as ‘low risk’, and other five instruments as ‘unclear’.…”