Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T08:49:09.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development and Validation of the Work Outcomes Coding Scale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

Lynda R. Matthews
Lynda R. Matthews*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney, Australia
*
School of Behavioural and Community Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, PO Box 170, Lidcombe, NSW 1825, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This article describes the development and validation of a new measure of post-accident work outcome and adjustment, the Work Outcomes Coding Scale (WOCS), whose items were derived from rehabilitation indices used individually by the Workcover Authority of New South Wales. Psychometric qualities of the 4-item scale were determined using two samples of hospitalised accident survivors who returned to work following their accident. The WOCS showed excellent internal consistency, correlated moderately to highly with other measures of role functioning and had low, significant correlations with factors connected with work adjustment. Low range WOCS scores were shown to be indicative of poor work outcomes and increasing need for vocational rehabilitation interventions.

Type
Articles
Information
The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , January 2002 , pp. 90 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1997a). Australian standard classification of occupations (2nd ed.). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1997b). National health survey, SF-36 population norms (ABS Catalogue No. 4399.0). Canberra: Author.Google Scholar
Bergner, M., Bobbitt, R., Carter, W., & Gilson, B. S. (1981). The sickness impact profile: Development and final revision of a health status measure. Medical Care, 19(8), 787–805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanchard, E.B., Hickling, E.J., Barton, K.A., Taylor, A.E., Loos, W.R., & Jones-Alexander, J. (1996). One-year prospective follow-up of motor vehicle accident victims. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 775–786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brazier, J.E., Harper, R., Jones, N.M.B., O'Cathain, A., Thomas, K.J., Usherwood, T, & Westlake, L. (1992). Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: New outcome measure for primary care. British Medical Journal, 305, 160–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, R.J., Johnson, W.G., & Baldwin, M.J. (1995). Managing work disability: Why first return to work is not a measure of success. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, 452–469.Google Scholar
Doleys, D.M. (1999). “Release-to-work” versus return-to-work. Clinical Journal of Pain, 15, 324–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, M.M., McFarlane, A.C., Hunter, C.E., & Griggs, W.M. (1993). Undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder following motor vehicle accidents. The Medical Journal of Australia, 159, 529–534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenspan, L., McLellan, B.A., & Greig, H. (1985). Abbreviated injury scale and injury severity score: A scoring chart. The Journal of Trauma, 25(1), 60–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeavons, S., Greenwood, K., & Home, D. (1996). Reported consequences following road accidents. Australian Journal of Primary Health — interchange, 2(2), 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, M.B., Lavori, P.W., Friedman, B., Nielsen, E., Endicott, J., McDonald-Scott, P., & Andreasen, N.C. (1987). The longitudinal interval follow-up evaluation: A comprehensive method for assessing outcome in prospective longitudinal studies. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 540–548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 5–55.Google Scholar
Malt, U.F., Blikra, G., & Hoivik, B. (1989). The late effect of accidental injury questionnaire (LEAIQ). Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia, 80(Suppl. 355), 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, L.R. (2002). The impact of posttraumatic stress disorder on occupational functioning. Sydney: School of Behavioural and Community Health Sciences, The University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Matthews, L.R., Chinnery, D.L., Blaszczynski, A., Silove, D., & Hillman, K. (2001). Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A risk factor for poor work outcomes in survivors of road trauma. Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 7, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaels, A.J., Michaels, C.E., Smith, J.S., Moon, C.H., Peterson, C., & Long, W.B. (2000). Outcome from injury: general health, work status, and satisfaction 12 months after trauma. Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, 48, 841–850.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowe, H.A.H. (1997). Work potential profile manual. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.Google Scholar
Saxon, J.P., Spitznagel, R.J., & Shellhorn-Schutt, P. K. (1983). Intercorrelations of selected VALPAR Component work samples and general aptitude test battery scores. Vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin, 16(1), 20–23.Google Scholar
Ware, J.E., & Sherbourne, C.D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Workcover NSW. (1999). Accredited rehabilitation provider performance report. Sydney: Author.Google Scholar