Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reliability and Validity of the Work and Well-Being Inventory (WBI) for Employees

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to measure the psychometric properties of the Work and Wellbeing Inventory (WBI) (in Dutch: VAR-2), a screening tool that is used within occupational health care and rehabilitation. Our research question focused on the reliability and validity of this inventory. Methods Over the years seven different samples of workers, patients and sick listed workers varying in size between 89 and 912 participants (total: 2514), were used to measure the test–retest reliability, the internal consistency, the construct and concurrent validity, and the criterion and predictive validity. Results The 13 scales displayed good internal consistency and test–retest reliability. The constructive validity of the WBI could clearly be demonstrated in both patients and healthy workers. Confirmative factor analyses revealed a CFI >.90 for all scales. The depression scale predicted future work absenteeism (>6 weeks) because of a common mental disorder in healthy workers. The job strain scale and the illness behavior scale predicted long term absenteeism (>3 months) in workers with short-term absenteeism. The illness behavior scale moderately predicted return to work in rehab patients attending an intensive multidisciplinary program. Conclusions The WBI is a valid and reliable tool for occupational health practitioners to screen for risk factors for prolonged or future sickness absence. With this tool they will have reliable indications for further advice and interventions to restore the work ability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Steenstra IA, Munhall C, Irvin E, Oranye N, Passmore S, Van Eerd, Mahood Q, Hogg-Johnson S. Systematic review of prognostic factors for return to work in workers with sub acute and chronic low back pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2016. doi:10.1007/s10926-016-9666-x.

  2. Nieuwenhuijsen K, Verbeek JH, Boer AG de, et al. Predicting the duration of sickness absence for patients with common mental disorders in occupational health care. Scand J Work Environm Health. 2006;32(1):67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Corbière M, Negrini A, Durand MJ, St-Arnaud L, Briand C, Fassier JB, Loisel P, Lachance JP. Development of the return-to-work obstacles and self-efficacy scale (roses) and validation with workers suffering from a common mental disorder or musculoskeletal disorder. J Occup Rehabil. 2016. doi:10.1007/s10926-016-9661-2.

  4. Kristman VL, Shaw WS, Boot CRL, Delclos GL, Sullivan MJ, Ehrhart MG. Researching complex and multi-level workplace factors affecting disability and prolonged sickness absence. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;26(4):399–416.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands–resources model: state of the art. J Man Psychol. 2007;22(1):309–328.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Klink JJL, Ausems CMM, Beijderwellen BD, et al. Evidence-based Occupational Health Guideline on common mental health for workers (Richtlijn handelen van de bedrijfsarts bij werkenden met psychische problemen). Utrecht: NVAB; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  7. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Arlington: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.

  8. Verschuren CM, Nauta AP, Bastiaanssen MHH. Multidisciplinary guideline on mental stress and burnout for primary and occupational care professionals (Multidisciplinaire richtlijn overspanning en burnout voor eerstelijns professionals). Utrecht: NVAB/NHG/LVE; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Streiner DL. Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess. 2003;80(1):99–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equat Model. 1999;6(1):1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Terluin B, van Marwijk HWJ, Adèr HJ, de Vet HCW, Penninx B, Hermens M, van Boeijen CA, Balkom A, van der Klink JJL, Stalman WAB. The four-dimensional symptom questionnaire (4DSQ): a validation study of a multidimensional self-report questionnaire to assess distress, depression, anxiety and somatization. BMC Psychiatry. 2006;6(1):1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Vercoulen JH, Swanink CM, Fennis JF, Galama JM, van der Meer JW, Bleijenberg G. Dimensional assessment of chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res. 1994;38(5):383–392.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Beurskens AJ, Bültmann U, Kant I, Vercoulen JH, Bleijenberg G, Swaen GM. Fatigue among working people: validity of a questionnaire measure. Occup Environm Med. 2000;57(5):353–357.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Vendrig AA, Deutz P, Vink I. Dutch translation and addaptation of the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (Nederlandse vertaling en bewerking van de fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire. Ned Tijd Pijn Pijnbestrijd. 1998;18(1):11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main C. A fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain. 1993;52(2):157–168.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Houtman I. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the karasek job content questionnaire. In: NIOSH/APA conference on stress, work and health. Washington, DC: APA; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  17. van der Doef M, Maes S. The job demand–control (-support) model and psychological well-being: a review of 20 years of empirical research. Work Stress. 1999;13(2):87–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. van Veldhoven M, Broersen S. Measurement quality and validity of the need for recovery scale. Occup Environm Med. 2003;60(Suppl 1):i3–i9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sluiter JK, de Croon EM, Meijman TF, Frings-Dresen MH. Need for recovery from work related fatigue and its role in the development and prediction of subjective health complaints. Occup Environm Med. 2003;60(Suppl I):i62–i70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Holmes TH, Rahe RH. The social readjustment scale. J Psychosom Res. 1967;11(2):213–218.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gerst MS, Grant I, Yager J, Sweetwood H. The reliability of the social readjustment rating scale: moderate and long-term stability. J Psychos Res. 1978;22(6):519–523.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Schreurs PJG, van Willige G, Tellegen B, Brosschot JF. Revised instruction manual fort he Utrecht Coping List (Herziene handleiding Utrechtse Coping Lijst (UCL)). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Turner H, Bryant-Waugh R, Peveler R, Bucks R. A psychometric evaluation of an English version of the Utrecht Coping List. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2012;20(4):339–342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tuomi K, Ilmarinen J, Jahkola A, et al. Work ability index. 2nd revised ed. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  25. van den Berg TIJ, Elders LAM, de Zwart BCH, Burdorf A. The effects of work-related and individual factors on the Work Ability Index: a systematic review. Occup Environm Med. 2009;66(4):211–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology. 1983;148(3):839–843.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Volker D, Zijlstra-Vlasveld MC, Brouwers EP, van Lomwel AG, van der Feltz-Cornelis CM. Return-to-work self-efficacy and actual return to work among long-term sick-listed employees. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(2):423–431.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Momsen AH, Stapelfeldt CM, Nielsen CV, Nielsen MB, Rugulies R, Jensen C. Screening instruments for predicting return to work in long-term sickness absence. Occup Med. 2016;67(2):101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Janssen N, Kant IJ, Swaen GW, Janssen PP, Schröer CA. Fatigue as a predictor of sickness absence: results from the Maastricht Cohort study on fatigue at work. Occup Environm Med. 2003;60(Suppl I):i71–i76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Leone SS, Huibers MJ, Knottnerus JA, Kant I. The prognosis of burnout and prolonged fatigue in the working population: a comparison. J Occup Environm Med. 2008;50(10):1195–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bültmann U, Nielsen MB, Madsen IEH, Burr H, Ruglies R. Sleep disturbances and fatigue: independent predictors of sickness absence? A prospective study among 6538 employees. Eur J Public Health. 2013;23(1);123–128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Roelen CA, van Rhenen W, Groothoff JW, van der Klink JJ, Bültmann U. Prolonged fatigue is associated with sickness absence in men but not in women: prospective study with 1 year follow-up of white collar employees. Int Arch Occup Environm Health. 2014;87(3):257–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Norder G, Roelen CA, van der Klink JJ, Bültmann U, Sluiter JK, Nieuwenhuijsen K. External validation and update of a prediction rule for the duration of sickness absence due to common mental disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;27(2):202–209.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. van Hoffen MFA, Joling CI, Heymans MW, Twisk JWR, Roelen CAM. Mental health symptoms identify workers at risk of long term sickness absence due to mental disorders: prospective cohort study with 2-year follow up. BMC Public Health 2015;15(1):1235.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Boezeman EJ, Nieuwenhuijsen K, Sluiter JK. Predictive value and construct validity of the work functioning screener-healthcare (WFS-H). J Occup Health. 2016;58(2):163–169.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull. 1985;98(2):310–357.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Johnson JV, Hall EM. Job strain, work place social support, and cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population. Am J Public Health. 1988;78(10):1336–1342.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Hackman JR, Oldham GR. Development of the job diagnostic survey. J Applied Psychol. 1975;60(2):159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Karasek RA. Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain, implications for job redesign. Adm Sci Q. 1979;24(2):285–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Brown GW, Harris TO. Social orgins of depression. London: Tavistock; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Costa PT, McCrae RR. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. J Pers Assess. 1995;64(1):21–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Selye H. Stress and the general adaptation syndrome. Br Med J. 1950;1(4667):1383–1392.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Clark LA, Watson D. Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. J Abnormal Psychol. 1991;100(3):316–336.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Vlaeyen JW, Linton SJ. Fear-avoidance beliefs and its consequences in chronic muscoloskeletal pain: a state of the art. Pain. 2000;85(3):317–332.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vledder Medical Centre, Pastorieweg 16, 8381 AX, Vledder, The Netherlands

    A. A. Vendrig

  2. Department of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Centre, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    F. G. Schaafsma

Authors
  1. A. A. Vendrig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. G. Schaafsma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. A. Vendrig.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

A. A. Vendrig has developed the WBI (Dutch: VAR-2) and he participates in a project to support the online application of the VAR-2 (project: VAR-2-app). F. G. Schaafsma declares she has no conflicts of interests.

Research Involving with Human and Animal Participants

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 9

Table 9 Summary of the WBI scales and subscales
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vendrig, A.A., Schaafsma, F.G. Reliability and Validity of the Work and Well-Being Inventory (WBI) for Employees. J Occup Rehabil 28, 377–390 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9729-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9729-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation