Objectives The aim of this study was to develop a questionnaire to measure work capabilities based on Amartya Sen’s capability approach and evaluate its validity. Methods The development of the questionnaire was based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods: interviews, literature study, and an expert meeting. Additionally, in a survey, the validity was evaluated by means of hypotheses testing (using correlations and regression analyses). Results The questionnaire consists of a set of seven capability aspects for work. For each aspect, it is determined whether it is part of a worker’s capability set, ie, when the aspect is considered valuable, is enabled in work, and is realized. The capability set was significantly correlated with work role functioning-flexibility demands (-0,187), work ability (-0.304), work performance (-0.282), worked hours (-0.073), sickness absence (yes/no) (0.098), and sickness absence days (0.105). The capability set and the overall capability item are significantly associated with all work outcomes (P<0.010). Conclusions The new capability set for work questionnaire appears to be a valid instrument to measure work capabilities. The questionnaire is unique because the items include the valued aspects of work and incorporate whether a worker is able to achieve what (s)he values in his/her work. The questionnaire can be used to evaluate the capability set of workers in organizations to identify aspects that need to be addressed in interventions.

Objective The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire v2.0 (WRFQ) is an outcome measure linking a persons’ health to the ability to meet work demands in the twenty-first century. We aimed to examine the construct validity of the WRFQ in a heterogeneous set of working samples in the Netherlands with mixed clinical conditions and job types to evaluate the comparability of the scale structure. Methods Confirmatory factor and multi-group analyses were conducted in six cross-sectional working samples (total N = 2433) to evaluate and compare a five-factor model structure of the WRFQ (work scheduling demands, output demands, physical demands, mental and social demands, and flexibility demands). Model fit indices were calculated based on RMSEA ≤ 0.08 and CFI ≥ 0.95. After fitting the five-factor model, the multidimensional structure of the instrument was evaluated across samples using a second order factor model. Results The factor structure was robust across samples and a multi-group model had adequate fit (RMSEA = 0.63, CFI = 0.972). In sample specific analyses, minor modifications were necessary in three samples (final RMSEA 0.055–0.080, final CFI between 0.955 and 0.989). Applying the previous first order specifications, a second order factor model had adequate fit in all samples. Conclusion A five-factor model of the WRFQ showed consistent structural validity across samples. A second order factor model showed adequate fit, but the second order factor loadings varied across samples. Therefore subscale scores are recommended to compare across different clinical and working samples.

During the past decade, common mental disorders (CMD) have emerged as a major public and occupational health problem in many countries. Several instruments have been developed to measure the influence of health on functioning at work. To select appropriate instruments for use in occupational health practice and research, the measurement properties (eg, reliability, validity, responsiveness) must be evaluated. The objective of this study is to appraise critically and compare the measurement properties of self-reported health-related work-functioning instruments among workers with CMD. A systematic review was performed searching three electronic databases. Papers were included that: (i) mainly focused on the development and/or evaluation of the measurement properties of a self-reported health-related work-functioning instrument; (ii) were conducted in a CMD population; and (iii) were fulltext original papers. Quality appraisal was performed using the consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist. Five papers evaluating measurement properties of five self-reported health-related work-functioning instruments in CMD populations were included. There is little evidence available for the measurement properties of the identified instruments in this population, mainly due to low methodological quality of the included studies. The available evidence on measurement properties is based on studies of poor-to-fair methodological quality. Information on a number of measurement properties, such as measurement error, content validity, and cross-cultural validity is still lacking. Therefore, no evidence-based decisions and recommendations can be made for the use of health-related work functioning instruments. Studies of high methodological quality are needed to properly assess the existing instruments' measurement properties.

The aim of this study was to examine whether work capabilities differ between workers with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and workers from the general population. The second aim was to investigate whether the capability set was related to work and health outcomes. A total of 163 workers with MS from the MS@Work study and 163 workers from the general population were matched for gender, age, educational level and working hours. All participants completed online questionnaires on demographics, health and work functioning. The Capability Set for Work Questionnaire was used to explore whether a set of seven work values is considered valuable (A), is enabled in the work context (B), and can be achieved by the individual (C). When all three criteria are met a work value can be considered part of the individual’s ‘capability set’. Group differences and relationships with work and health outcomes were examined. Despite lower physical work functioning (U = 4250, p = 0.001), lower work ability (U = 10591, p = 0.006) and worse self-reported health (U = 9091, p ≤ 0.001) workers with MS had a larger capability set (U = 9649, p ≤ 0.001) than the general population. In workers with MS, a larger capability set was associated with better flexible work functioning (r = 0.30), work ability (r = 0.25), self-rated health (r = 0.25); and with less absenteeism (r = − 0.26), presenteeism (r = − 0.31), cognitive/neuropsychiatric impairment (r = − 0.35), depression (r = − 0.43), anxiety (r = − 0.31) and fatigue (r = − 0.34). Workers with MS have a larger capability set than workers from the general population. In workers with MS a larger capability set was associated with better work and health outcomes. This observational study is registered under NL43098.008.12: ‘Voorspellers van arbeidsparticipatie bij mensen met relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerose’. The study is registered at the Dutch CCMO register ( https://www.toetsingonline.nl ). This study is approved by the METC Brabant, 12 February 2014. First participants are enrolled 1st of March 2014.

Purpose: Our aims were (i) to explore why it is that one worker with a health problem is able to stay at work while the other is not, (ii) to identify signals for decreased functioning at work, and (iii) to explore if and how this can be measured. Method: We conducted three focus groups: with workers with a health problem, occupational physicians, and human resources managers/supervisors. Results: Individual differences in coping strategies, motivation, believes, attitudes, and values were mentioned. All three groups reported that the supervisor is the key figure in the functioning at work of workers with health problems. The supervisor can facilitate the work accommodation of workers and help optimizing functioning at work. The identified signals might contribute to the development of an instrument. Conditions for use were suggested, i.e. a “safe” setting. Conclusions: This focus group study provided insight in why it is that one worker is able to stay at work while the other is not, according to the opinions of three different groups. Although all three groups reported that the supervisor is the key figure in the functioning at work of workers with health problems, there are differences between how the three stakeholders perceive the situation.