Abstract
Return-to-work self-efficacy (RTW-SE) is shown to be an important variable for return–to-work after a work-related injury. Previous measures of RTW-SE have been developed exclusively for physical or psychological injuries; however, both injury types occur at work and self-efficacy is likely relevant to return-to-work (RTW) for both types of injuries. The objective of this study was to establish the factor structure and construct validity of a modified RTW-SE measure in a sample of injured workers with musculoskeletal or psychological work-related injuries. Workers’ who suffered a psychological (N = 80) or upper-body musculoskeletal (UB-MSK) (N = 88) injury, and who had not yet returned to work, were presented with 13 items derived from two validated RTW-SE scales. Exploratory Factor Analysis was used to determine the factor structure of RTW-SE. Differences in levels of RTW-SE were then examined across injury type, work absence, and the ability to cope with injury. Three dimensions of RTW-SE were extracted; work completion beliefs (3 items), affective work beliefs (5 items) and work social support beliefs (3 items). The model fit was acceptable and moderate correlations were found between dimensions. The workers’ current ability to cope with the injury was moderately correlated with all RTW-SE dimensions but was lowest with the social dimension. Psychological injuries were associated with lower levels RTW-SE except on the work completion beliefs. Increasing work absence was associated with lower levels of RTW-SE except on affective work beliefs, which plateaued from 51 to 150 days of absence. The structure of RTW-SE was established in a mixed-injury work-related population. The structure was comparable to previous scales; however, the affective work beliefs dimension is unique to the current scale. Other results were in the expected directions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy—toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychol. Rev. 84(2), 191–215 (1977)
Brotheridge, C.M., Grandey, A.A.: Emotional labor and burnout: comparing two perspectives of “people work”. J. Vocat. Behav. 60(1), 17–39 (2002)
Brouwer, S., Franche, R.L., Hogg-Johnson, S., Lee, H., Krause, N., Shaw, W.S.: Return-to-work self-efficacy: development and validation of a scale in claimants with musculoskeletal disorders. J. Occup. Rehabil. 21(2), 244–258 (2011)
Costello, A.B., Osborne, J.W.: Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 10(7), 1–9 (2005)
Franche, R.-L., Severin, C.N., Hogg-Johnson, S., Cote, P., Vidmar, M., Lee, H.: The impact of early workplace-based return-to-work strategies on work absence duration: a 6-month longitudinal study following an occupational musculoskeletal injury. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 49(9), 960–974 (2007)
Gallagher M.W.: Self-efficacy. In: V. S. Ramachandran (eds.) Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 2nd edn, pp. 314–320. San Diego, Academic Press
Huijs, J., Koppes, L.L.J., Taris, T.W., Blonk, R.W.B.: Differences in predictors of return to work among long-term sick-listed employees with different self-reported reasons for sick leave. J. Occup. Rehabil. 22(3), 301–311 (2012)
ISCRR: Compensation Research Database. Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research, Melbourne (2014)
Kaiser, H.F.: The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20, 141–151 (1960)
Kirsh, B., Slack, T., King, C.A.: The nature and impact of stigma towards injured workers. J. Occup. Rehabil. 22(2), 143–154 (2012)
Labriola, M., Lund, T., Christensen, K.B., Albertsen, K., Bultmann, U., Jensen, J.N., et al.: Does self-efficacy predict return-to-work after sickness absence? A prospective study among 930 employees with sickness absence for three weeks or more. Work (Reading, Mass) 29(3), 233–238 (2007)
Lagerveld, S.E., Blonk, R.W.B., Brenninkmeijer, V., Schaufeli, W.B.: Return to work among employees with mental health problems: development and validation of a self-efficacy questionnaire. Work Stress 24(4), 359–375 (2010)
Mondloch, M.V., Cole, D.C., Frank, J.W.: Does how you do depend on how you think you’ll do? A systematic review of the evidence for a relation between patients’ recovery expectations and health outcomes. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 165(2), 174–179 (2001)
Muthén L.K., Muthén B.O. (1998–2012). Mplus User’s Guide. 7th Edition. Los Angeles
Nieuwenhuijsen, K., Noordik, E., van Dijk, F.J.H., van der Klink, J.J.: Return to work perceptions and actual return to work in workers with common mental disorders. J. Occup. Rehabil. 23(2), 290–299 (2013)
Norman, G.R., Streiner, D.L.: Biostatistics: The Bare Essentials. B.C. Decker, Hamilton (2008)
Safe Work Australia (2013). Australian workers’ compensation statistics 2011–2012. Canberra, ACT, Safe Work Australia 1: 67
Safe Work Australia (2014). Comparison of workers’ compensation arrangements in Australia and New Zealand. Canberra, Safe Work Australia
Shaw, W.S., Huang, Y.H.: Concerns and expectations about returning to work with low back pain: identifying themes from focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Disabil. Rehabil. 27(21), 1269–1281 (2005)
Shaw, W.S., Reme, S.E., Linton, S.J., Huang, Y.H., Pransky, G.: 3rd place, PREMUS best paper competition: development of the return-to-work self-efficacy (RTWSE-19) questionnaire–psychometric properties and predictive validity. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 37(2), 109–119 (2011)
Smith, P.M., Black, O., Keegel, T., Collie, A.: Are the predictors of work absence following a work-related injury similar for musculoskeletal and mental health claims? J. Occup. Rehabil. 24(1), 79–88 (2014)
StataCorp (2011). Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, TX, StataCorp LP
Trivedi, M.H.: The link between depression and physical symptoms. Prim. Care Companion J. Clin. Psychiatry 6(1), 12–16 (2004)
Williams, B., Brown, T., Onsman, A.: Exploratory factor analysis: a five-step guide for novices. Australas. J. Paramed. 8(3), 1 (2010)
Wilson, S.J., Derrett, S., Cameron, I.D., Samaranayaka, A., Davie, G., Langley, J.: Prevalence of poor outcomes soon after injury and their association with the severity of the injury. Inj. Prev. 20(1), 57–61 (2014)
Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (2014). DECISION NO. 2157/09,. W. S. a. I. A. Tribunal, Ontario
Yu C (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Los Angeles, University of California. Doctorate
Acknowledgements
This project was supported through funding from the Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research at Monash University. O Black is supported through PhD Funding as part of an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant (LP130100091). P M Smith was supported by the Discovery Early Career Researcher Award from the Australian Research Council (DE120101580). He is currently supported by a Research Chair in Gender, Work and Health from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Black, O., Sim, M.R., Collie, A. et al. A return-to-work self-efficacy scale for workers with psychological or musculoskeletal work-related injuries. Qual Quant 51, 413–424 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0312-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0312-7