The Brazilian version of the 5-item Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 (WRFQ-5) has adequate measurement properties in workers with chronic pain

IF 1.3 Q3 REHABILITATION
Letícia Padilha Mendes , Cid André Fidelis-de-Paula-Gomes , André Pontes-Silva , Jhonata Botelho Protazio , Bruno Ruocco Verengue , Cesário da Silva Souza , Daniela Bassi-Dibai , Almir Vieira Dibai-Filho
{"title":"The Brazilian version of the 5-item Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 (WRFQ-5) has adequate measurement properties in workers with chronic pain","authors":"Letícia Padilha Mendes ,&nbsp;Cid André Fidelis-de-Paula-Gomes ,&nbsp;André Pontes-Silva ,&nbsp;Jhonata Botelho Protazio ,&nbsp;Bruno Ruocco Verengue ,&nbsp;Cesário da Silva Souza ,&nbsp;Daniela Bassi-Dibai ,&nbsp;Almir Vieira Dibai-Filho","doi":"10.1016/j.jbmt.2025.12.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To assess the reliability, internal consistency, structural validity, and construct validity of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 with 5 items (WRFQ-5) in Brazilian workers with chronic pain.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a questionnaire validation study. Workers with chronic pain, both genders, and age ≥18 years were included. We assessed the internal structure of the WRFQ-5 using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). To assess construct validity, we correlated the WRFQ-5 with the short version of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (OMPSQ). In addition, we assessed test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and floor and ceiling effects. <strong>Results</strong>: We included 153 workers with chronic pain for analysis of internal structure and construct validity, and a subsample of 43 for analysis of test-retest reliability. We identified the unidimensionality of the WRFQ-5 by means of EFA with implementation of parallel analysis (KMO = 0.77 and p &lt; 0.001for Bartlett's test of sphericity). Regarding construct validity, we confirmed the hypothesis by observing a negative correlation with magnitude lower than 0.30 (unrelated constructs) between the WRFQ-5 and the OMPSQ. We found substantial reliability (ICC = 0.79) and adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.88). No ceiling or floor effects were observed.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The Brazilian Portuguese version of the WRFQ-5 demonstrates adequate measurement properties for use in workers with chronic pain.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51431,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF BODYWORK AND MOVEMENT THERAPIES","volume":"46 ","pages":"Pages 471-475"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF BODYWORK AND MOVEMENT THERAPIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360859225004991","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To assess the reliability, internal consistency, structural validity, and construct validity of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 with 5 items (WRFQ-5) in Brazilian workers with chronic pain.

Methods

This was a questionnaire validation study. Workers with chronic pain, both genders, and age ≥18 years were included. We assessed the internal structure of the WRFQ-5 using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). To assess construct validity, we correlated the WRFQ-5 with the short version of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (OMPSQ). In addition, we assessed test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and floor and ceiling effects. Results: We included 153 workers with chronic pain for analysis of internal structure and construct validity, and a subsample of 43 for analysis of test-retest reliability. We identified the unidimensionality of the WRFQ-5 by means of EFA with implementation of parallel analysis (KMO = 0.77 and p < 0.001for Bartlett's test of sphericity). Regarding construct validity, we confirmed the hypothesis by observing a negative correlation with magnitude lower than 0.30 (unrelated constructs) between the WRFQ-5 and the OMPSQ. We found substantial reliability (ICC = 0.79) and adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.88). No ceiling or floor effects were observed.

Conclusion

The Brazilian Portuguese version of the WRFQ-5 demonstrates adequate measurement properties for use in workers with chronic pain.
巴西版的5项工作角色功能问卷2.0 (WRFQ-5)对慢性疼痛工人具有足够的测量特性
目的评估巴西慢性疼痛工人5项工作角色功能问卷2.0 (WRFQ-5)的信度、内部一致性、结构效度和结构效度。方法采用问卷验证法。患有慢性疼痛的工人,不分性别,年龄≥18岁。我们使用探索性因子分析(EFA)评估WRFQ-5的内部结构。为了评估结构效度,我们将WRFQ-5与简短版的Orebro肌肉骨骼疼痛筛查问卷(OMPSQ)相关联。此外,我们评估了重测信度、内部一致性和下限和上限效应。结果:我们纳入153名慢性疼痛工人进行内部结构和构念效度分析,并纳入43名子样本进行重测信度分析。我们通过EFA和并行分析确定了WRFQ-5的单维性(Bartlett's球形检验的KMO = 0.77, p < 0.001)。在构念效度方面,我们观察到WRFQ-5与OMPSQ之间存在小于0.30的负相关(不相关构念),从而证实了假设。我们发现了相当的信度(ICC = 0.79)和足够的内部一致性(Cronbach's alpha = 0.88)。没有观察到天花板或地板效应。结论巴西葡萄牙语版WRFQ-5具有足够的测量特性,适用于慢性疼痛工人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
133
审稿时长
321 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies brings you the latest therapeutic techniques and current professional debate. Publishing highly illustrated articles on a wide range of subjects this journal is immediately relevant to everyday clinical practice in private, community and primary health care settings. Techiques featured include: • Physical Therapy • Osteopathy • Chiropractic • Massage Therapy • Structural Integration • Feldenkrais • Yoga Therapy • Dance • Physiotherapy • Pilates • Alexander Technique • Shiatsu and Tuina
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书