The Brazilian version of the work role functioning questionnaire 2.0 with 5 items (WRFQ-5) has adequate measurement properties

ABSTRACT

Background

The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 (WRFQ 2.0) is an important instrument within the context of occupational health, consisting of 27 items and 5 domains. In addition, a short version of WRFQ 2.0 with 5 items (WRFQ-5) was proposed, showing agreement with the long version. Thus, we aimed to confirm the number of factors of the WRFQ-5 short version and to verify the structural, construct, and criterion validity, reliability, internal consistency, and analysis of ceiling and floor effects of the Brazilian version of the WRFQ-5 in a general workers population.

Methods

A questionnaire validation and measurement properties study. We evaluated the internal structure of the WRFQ-5 by means of confirmatory factor analysis. Construct validity was assessed by correlating the WRFQ-5 with the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Work Ability Index (WAI), and Self-Estimated Functional Inability because of Pain (SEFIP-work). Criterion validity was assessed by correlating the WRFQ-5 with the 5 domains of the WRFQ 2.0. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were also evaluated.

Results

We observed positive correlations (p < .05) between the WRFQ-5 and the WAI (rho = 0.161 to 0.308) and negative correlations (p < .05) between the WRFQ-5 and the SEFIP-work (rho = −0.293). The WRFQ-5 significantly and positively correlates with the 5 domains of WRFQ 2.0 (rho = 0.742 to 0.830). The test-retest reliability of the WRFQ-5 was excellent (ICC_2,1 = 0.935) and the internal consistency was adequate (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.938). We did not observe ceiling and floor effects.

Conclusion

The one-dimensional internal structure of the WRFQ-5 in Brazilian Portuguese has a valid internal structure and construct, as well as adequate reliability and internal consistency.

KEYWORDS:

• Role functioning
• questionnaire
• occupational health
• Cross-cultural
• validation studies
• work

Acknowledgments

We thank the participants of the present study for their collaboration.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

The study was partially supported by the Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel - Brazil (CAPES). However, the funder had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the article.