Psychometric evaluation demonstrates a valid recovery expectation measure predicting return-to-work in patients, highlighting rehabilitation strategies.
Background Recovery expectations are key predictors of rehabilitation following injury. Despite their widespread use in clinical and research settings, most assessments rely on single‐item measures that lack formal validation. Objective This study aims to evaluate the construct validity and test–retest reliability of a single‐item recovery expectation measure in individuals with occupational low back pain. Methods Fifty‐eight participants with occupational low back pain enrolled in physical therapy and a pain management course completed a single‐item recovery expectation measure (“ What is the probability that you will return to work ?”) rated on a 0–100 scale. Baseline assessments included psychological measures of pain catastrophizing, perceived injustice, anxiety, and depression. Follow‐up assessments were conducted 4 weeks later. Construct validity (convergent and predictive) and test–retest reliability were analyzed. Results The single‐item measure demonstrated significant negative correlations with psychological variables, supporting convergent validity. A logistic regression showed that the baseline recovery expectation measure significantly predicted return to work status at 4 weeks (OR = 1.050, 95% CI = 1.006–1.092, p = 0.024). A ROC analysis indicated that a recovery expectation score of 78.5 distinguished workers who returned to work within 4 weeks. Test–retest reliability was high (ICC = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79–0.9, p < 0.001), with Bland–Altman plots indicating strong agreement across time. Conclusion A single‐item recovery expectation measure demonstrated good psychometric properties in individuals with occupational low back pain, offering a low‐burden, practical tool for clinical and research settings. Its use may facilitate early identification of individuals at risk for prolonged work disability, supporting targeted rehabilitation strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carrière et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: