Measuring Work Functioning: Validity of a Weighted Composite Work Functioning Approach

To examine the construct validity of a weighted composite work functioning measurement approach.

Workers (health-impaired/healthy) (n = 117) completed a composite measure survey that recorded four central work functioning aspects with existing scales: capacity to work, quality of work performance, quantity of work, and recovery from work. Previous derived weights reflecting the relative importance of these aspects of work functioning were used to calculate the composite weighted work functioning score of the workers. Work role functioning, productivity, and quality of life were used for validation. Correlations were calculated and norms applied to examine convergent and divergent construct validity. A t test was conducted and a norm applied to examine discriminative construct validity.

Overall the weighted composite work functioning measure demonstrated construct validity. As predicted, the weighted composite score correlated (p < .001) strongly (r > .60) with work role functioning and productivity (convergent construct validity), and moderately (.30 < r < .60) with physical quality of life and less strongly than work role functioning and productivity with mental quality of life (divergent validity). Further, the weighted composite measure detected that health-impaired workers show with a large effect size (Cohen's d > .80) significantly worse work functioning than healthy workers (discriminative validity).

The weighted composite work functioning measurement approach takes into account the relative importance of the different work functioning aspects and demonstrated good convergent, fair divergent, and good discriminative construct validity.