Primary Image

RehabMeasures

Worker Role Interview

Purpose

A semi-structured interview designed for use as the psychosocial/environmental component of an initial rehabilitation assessment process for the injured worker or person with longstanding illness or disability. (Velozo et al, 1998)

Link to Instrument

Acronym WRI

Area of Assessment

Occupational Performance
Pain
Patient Satisfaction
Positive Affect
Quality of Life
Range of Motion
Self-efficacy
Social Relationships

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$40.00

Cost Description

The WRI manual recommends being familiar with the OCAIRS assessment which costs an additional $40.00

Key Descriptions

  • Minimum and maximum scores: Strongly interferes - Strongly supports
  • ems are scored on a four-point scale describing the level of interference the item has on the client’s return to work. The scores range from “Strongly supports,” which is the highest score, and “Strongly interferes,” which is the lowest score. There is also an “N/A” scoring option if there was not enough information gathered to assess an item. Items are scored by sections, where the therapist checks off descriptions that fit any applicable ratings that match the clients’ status. The therapist then chooses an overall score in each section based on the most checked descriptions within a rating level.
  • ○ The Worker Role Interview consists of five steps. including:
    1. Preparing for the interview
    1. Completing a semi structured interview
    2. Conducting physical capacity assessments, functional assessments and any additional screenings
    3. Scoring the WRI Rating Form using a 4 point rating scale based on MOHO.
    4. Using WRI for discharge evaluation.
  • To assist in gathering critical info, there are recommended questions provided in three different formats (for injured workers, longstanding illnesses etc) (Braveman et al., 2008).

Number of Items

17

Equipment Required

  • Score Sheet and manual

Time to Administer

30-60 minutes

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Age Ranges

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

+

years

Instrument Reviewers

  • Yui Ito, Occupational Therapy Student, University of Illinois at Chicago
  • Ina Karanxha, Occupational Therapy Student, University of Illinois at Chicago
  • Jennifer Mussington, Occupational Therapy Student, University of Illinois at Chicago
  • Sina Webster, Occupational Therapy Student, University of Illinois at Chicago

ICF Domain

Participation

Measurement Domain

Activities of Daily Living

Mental Health

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Severe Mental Illness (Bejerholm & Areberg, 2014; n = 120; mean age = 38 (9.25); mean time post first psychiatric contact = 14 (11) years; Swedish speaking)

  • SEM for entire group (n = 120): 2.49

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Severe Mental Illness (Bejerholm & Areberg, 2014)

  • MDC for entire group (n = 120): 6.9

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Severe Mental Illness (Bejerholm & Areberg, 2014)

  • MCID = 4.89

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Chronic Mental Illness: (Morlan & Tan, 1998; n = 27; mean age = n/a; mean time post psychiatric contact = n/a; 9 with schizophrenia, 4 with schizoaffective disorder, 3 with bipolar disorder, and 2 with mild retardation)

  • Adequate concurrent validity when correlated with the total scores of the Brief Symptom Inventory, as represented by the General Severity Scale (r = 0.55, p < 0.01), the Positive Symptom Total (r = 0.56, p < 0.01), and the Positive Symptom Distress Index (r = 0.50, p < 0.01)

Construct Validity

Severe Mental Illness (Hansson & Bjorkman, 2005; n = 92; mean age = 47 (9.75); mean duration of illness = 22 (9.25) years; 46 with schizophrenia, 14 with other psychosis, and 17 with no psychosis; Swedish speaking)

  • Adequate construct validity when correlated with quality of life which was measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (r = 0.58, p < 0.05)

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Severe Mental Illness: (Lohss, Forsyth & Kottorp, 2012; n = 34; mean age = 39 (9.25); mean time post psychiatric contact = n/a; 14 with schizophrenia, 6 with depressive disorder, 5 with personality disorder, 3 with bipolar disorder, 2 with neurotic/anxiety disorder, 1 with anorexia nervosa, 1 with adjustment reaction, and 2 with no diagnosis)

  • No ceiling and floor effects could be discerned in a sample of persons with mental illness.

Back Pain

back to Populations

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Back Cervical injury/ Extremity Injury:  (Velozo, C.A et al., 1999; n = 42; mean age = 40.1(9.0); Clients diagnosed mainly with back injury and some with extremity injury.)

  • Poor predictive validity of the WRI in return-to-work measurement (n = 42, r = 0.33- 1.00)

Construct Validity

Back Cervical injury/ Extremity Injury:  (Velozo, C.A et al., 1999)

  • All items formed a unidimensional construct except for the work setting and boss environment items, indicating there may be a problem in the definition of the items.

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Back Cervical injury/ Extremity Injury: (Velozo, C.A et al., 1999; n = 119; mean age= n/a; Clients with low back injury.)

  • Though clients had a tendency to score higher than the mean on the WRI scale, no ceiling or floor effects were observed.

Musculoskeletal Conditions

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Musculoskeletal Disorder:

(Koller, B. et al, 2011; n = 20; mean age = 40.2 (9.24) years; participants had a work related MSD (low back, neck or shoulder pain); Swiss, German speaking sample.)

  • SEM for entire group (n = 20): .827

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Musculoskeletal Disorder: (Koller, B. et al, 2011)

  • MDC for entire group (n = 20): 2.29

Test/Retest Reliability

Musculoskeletal Disorder: (Biernacki, S.D., 1993; n = 30; mean age = 37.8 years; participants received rehab due to upper extremity injury.)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability: (ICC = .95)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Musculoskeletal Disorder: (Koller, B. et al, 2011)

  • Excellent inter-rater reliability: (ICC = 0.86 to 0.94)

Construct Validity

Musculoskeletal Disorder: (Koller, B. et al, 2011)

  • With the removal of item 15 (perception of boss/and or company), the Rasch analysis indicates only slight deviation between the observed data and what was expected from the model at group level.

Bibliography

Bejerholm, U., & Areberg, C. (2014). Factors related to the return to work potential in persons with severe mental illness. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 21(4), 277-286.

 

Biernacki, S.D, (1993). Reliability of the worker role interview. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46(9), 797-803.

 

Braveman, B., Robson, M., Velozo, C., Kielhofner, G., Fisher, G., & Forsyth, K. (2008). The worker role interview (version 10.0). Chicago, IL: Model of Human Occupation Clearinghouse, Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Applied Health Science University of Illinois of Chicago, and UIC Board of Trustees.

 

Hansson, L., & Bj?rkman, T. (2005). Empowerment in people with a mental illness: reliability and validity of the Swedish version of an empowerment scale. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 19(1), 32-38.

 

K?ller, B., Niedermann, K., Klipstein, A., & Haugboelle, J. (2011). The psychometric properties of the German version of the new Worker Role Interview (WRI-G 10.0) in people with musculoskeletal disorders. Work, 40(4).

 

Lohss, I., Forsyth, K., & Kottorp, A. (2012). Psychometric Properties of the Worker Role Interview (Version 10.0) in Mental Health. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 75, 171-179.

 

Morlan, K., & Tan, S. (1998). Comparison of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the Brief Symptom Inventory. Journal of clinical psychology, 54(7), 885-894.

 

Velozo, C. A., Kielhofner, G., Gern, A., Lin, F., Azhar, F., Lai J. & Fisher, G. (1998). Worker role interview: Toward validation of a psychosocial work-related measure. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 9(3), 153-68.