Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose The current study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Multiple Sclerosis Work Difficulties Questionnaire-23 (MSWDQ-23).Methods Two hundred and thirty-nine employed persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) and 59 healthy controls completed the MSWDQ-23. To verify the factor structure, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. To assess construct validity, the MSWDQ-23 scores were correlated to measures of physical disability, fatigue, cognitive and neuropsychiatric problems, depression, health-related quality of life, and work-related variables. MSWDQ-23 scores were compared within different age groups, gender, education levels, and job types. Predictive validity was assessed using a logistic regression analysis to predict a deterioration in employment status after one year based on MSWDQ-23 scores.Results The internal consistency of the MSWDQ-23 was acceptable (α = 0.913, 95% CI = 0.897–0.928) and the results indicated a fair fit. The MSWDQ-23 showed acceptable construct validity, confirming 94% of the hypotheses. The total scale and the psychological/cognitive subscale were able to predict a deterioration in employment status after one year (χ2(1)=18.164, p < 0.001).Conclusions The Dutch version of the MSWDQ-23 is a valid and internally consistent instrument to measure self-reported work difficulties in persons with MS.Implications for rehabilitationThe Dutch version of the 23-item Multiple Sclerosis Work Difficulties Questionnaire (MSWDQ-23) is a reliable and valid tool to measure self-reported work difficulties in people with multiple sclerosis (MS).More psychological and cognitive work difficulties are predictive of a deteriorated employment status after one year.The MSWDQ-23 is a helpful tool for researchers and (occupational) health professionals to identify current work difficulties in persons with MS and identify persons at risk for a deterioration in employment one year later.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Egmond et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: