IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0210359.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quickscan assesses risk factors of long-term sickness absence: A cross-sectional (factorial) construct validation study

Author

Listed:
  • Kaat Goorts
  • Sofie Vandenbroeck
  • Tinne Vander Elst
  • Dorina Rusu
  • Marc Du Bois
  • Saskia Decuman
  • Lode Godderis

Abstract

Objectives: The number of sick-listed employees has increased dramatically worldwide. Therefore, many countries aim to stimulate early and sustainable return to work opportunities to obtain better health outcomes and lower costs for disability pensions. To effectively orientate resources to patients with a high risk of not resuming work spontaneously, it is necessary to screen patients early in their sickness absence process. In this study, we validate “Quickscan”, a new instrument to assess return-to-work needs and to predict risks of long-term sick leave. Methods: As part of the Quickscan validation process, we tested and compared the reliability and construct validity of the questionnaire in two different populations. First, we conducted a cross-sectional study in which the screening instrument was sent to sick-listed individuals in healthcare insurance. In a second cross-sectional study, sick-listed workers who consulted the occupational health physician for return-to-work assessment were asked to fill out the questionnaire. We compared both samples for descriptive statistics: frequencies, means and standard deviations. Reliability of the scales was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to evaluate the construct (factorial) validity of the studied scales using software package AMOS 24. Results: The screening tool was shown to be an instrument with reliable scales (except for the perfectionism and health perception patient scale) in both populations. The construct validity was satisfactory: we found that the hypothesized measurement models with the theoretical factors fitted the data well in both populations. In the first sample, the model improved for scales concerning stressful life events and showed worse fit for person-related factors. Work-related factors and functioning factors both showed similar fit indices across samples. We found small differences in descriptive statistics, which we could explain by the differences in characteristics of both populations. Conclusions: We can conclude that the instrument has considerable potential to function as a screening tool for disability management and follow-up of sick-leave, provided that some adaptations and validation tests are executed.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaat Goorts & Sofie Vandenbroeck & Tinne Vander Elst & Dorina Rusu & Marc Du Bois & Saskia Decuman & Lode Godderis, 2019. "Quickscan assesses risk factors of long-term sickness absence: A cross-sectional (factorial) construct validation study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0210359
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210359
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210359&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0210359?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0210359. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.