Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Using the Work Limitations Questionnaire in Patients With A Chronic Condition in the Netherlands

Verhoef, Joan A.C. MSc; Miedema, Harald S. MD, MSc; Bramsen, Inge PhD; Roebroeck, Marij E. PhD

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine: October 2012 - Volume 54 - Issue 10 - p 1293–1299
doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31825cb68d

Objective: To examine the intelligibility and psychometric properties of the modified Dutch language version of the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ) (WLQ-mdlv).

Methods: Employed patients with a physical chronic condition completed the WLQ-mdlv, the Work Ability Index, and the 36-item short form health survey. Intelligibility, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and external construct validity of the WLQ-mdlv were assessed.

Results: In 125 patients, the WLQ-mdlv showed improved intelligibility for a Dutch population. With Cronbach α coefficients more than .80, squared weighted κ of 0.63 or more (individual items), intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.83 or more (WLQ scales), a minimal detectable change of four points (WLQ index), and negative correlations with the Work Ability Index and related 36-item short form health survey scales reliability and external construct validity of the WLQ-mdlv were confirmed.

Conclusion: The WLQ-mdlv is an intelligible, reliable, and valid instrument for evaluating work limitations in employees with a chronic condition in the Netherlands.

From the Centre of Expertise Innovations in Care (Ms Verhoef and Drs Miedema and Bramsen), Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; and Department of Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (Ms Verhoef and Dr Roebroeck), Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Address correspondence to: Joan A.C. Verhoef, MSc, Centre of Expertise Innovations in Care, Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (

No funding was received for this research.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interests.

©2012The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine