ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2026
Psychometric Evaluation of an ICF-Based Instrument to Assess Work Ability in Occupational Health Care.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeOccupational health professionals (OHPs) collaborate to support return to work (RTW) for employees on long-term sick leave, but differences in roles and perspectives can result in inconsistent work ability assessments. To promote a shared understanding of work ability, the ICF (International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health)-based Work Ability & Reintegration Description (WARD) instrument was developed. This study evaluated its psychometric properties, in particular criterion validity and reliability.
methodsA mixed-methods study was conducted in three phases. Firstly, a reference standard set for assessing work ability in 10 case vignettes was established employing the Modified Delphi method with nine OHPs. Secondly, 22 OHPs independently assessed work ability with the WARD-instrument, for which overall agreement with the reference standard, and inter-rater reliability were calculated. Thirdly, a focus group with eight OHPs explored sources of variation for assessing work ability with WARD.
resultsAgreement with the reference standard ranged from 58.6% to 99.5%. High agreement (> 70%) was found for 23 out of 29 items. Specificity (59.7%-99.5%) generally exceeded sensitivity (18.2%-95.5%), indicating greater consistency in ruling out non-relevant items than in identifying relevant ones. Focus group discussions emphasized that assessments should be context-dependent to support rehabilitation purposes.
conclusionThe WARD-instrument shows promising criterion validity and reliability, especially for objectifiable and physical aspects of functioning. More complex and context-dependent domains, such as cognitive aspects of functioning and personal factors, remain challenging to consistently assess among different OHPs. Its focus on identifying context-sensitive RTW barriers may support more person-centered sick leave guidance. Further research in real-life practice is needed to strengthen validation and guide implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41723760What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.