RehabMeasures Instrument
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Dialogue about Working Ability

Dialogue about Working Ability

download

Purpose

The instrument can be administered to assess a client’s psychological ability to return to work. Additionally, the DWA determines client’s level of participation in the rehab process. This individual assessment, consisting of a patient self-report and a professional assessment, assists with dialogue between a client’s employer and healthcare professional. The DWA addresses 5 MOHO related dimensions assessing readiness to return to work.

Link to Instrument

Acronym DWA

Area of Assessment

Life Participation
Occupational Performance
Reading Comprehension

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$134.22

Cost Description

The cost is 1,260 Swedish Krona which is equivalent to 134.22 United States Dollar on July 11, 2019.

Populations

Mixed Populations

Key Descriptions

  • From our research, the DWA was administered in an outpatient psychiatric rehab center. (Linddhal, 2007)
    Two sections: one for the client to complete (patient self-report) and the other for the clinician (professional assessment), with 34 items each; divided into five dimensions:
    (1) personal causation, values, and interest (nine items),
    (2) roles and habits (eight items),
    (3) physical ability (four items),
    (4) organizational and problem-solving ability (six items), and
    (5) communication and interaction ability (seven items)
    Client’s level of awareness and perceived performance capacity against work is scored on a five-point Likert scale: ranging from “Low level” to “High level” (Norrby and Linddahl, 2006).

Number of Items

There are 34 items in the individual self-assessment.

Equipment Required

  • Questionnaire & Pencil

Time to Administer

 minutes

Time of administration depends on the disability which the participant is living with (length of rehab timeline) and the willingness of the employer

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Age Ranges

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Matt Linas, OTS, UIC; LaJuan Criswell, OTS, UIC; Julia Ells, OTS, at UIC

ICF Domain

Activity
Participation
Environment

Measurement Domain

Cognition
Emotion

Professional Association Recommendation

The Swedish Association of Occupational Therapy recommends the use of the DWA on their website, where they list other useful assessments.

Considerations

Prior to administering the assessment, be sure to be knowledgeable and considerate of the client’s condition(s).

Tags

Vocational Rehabilitation

Mixed Populations

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

  • Workers with long-term disability due to psychiatric or psychosocial problems (Norrby and Linddahl, 2006; n = 34; mean age = 40.9 years; mean number of years since last employment = 3.9 years). Spearman Rank Correlation
    • 3 items (r = 0.26-0.50)
    • 21 items (r = 0.51-0.75)
    • 9 items (r = 0.75-1.0)
    • 1 item (r = 0.90-1.0)
  • Psych Rehab Population (Linddhal, 2007) Spearman Rank Correlation used to determine clients perception of issues related to work ability: testing measurement error
    • Test-retest (r = 0.51-0.75)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

  • Workers with long-term disability due to psychiatric or psychosocial problems (Norrby and Linddahl, 2006; n = 34; mean age = 40.9 years; mean number of years since last employment = 3.9 years)
    • Excellent reliability: Percentage of Agreement > 75%
    • Interrater reliability in 15 items: (100%)
      • Personal causation, values, and interest questions: 5 items (1, 3, 4, 5, 6)
      • Roles and habits questions: 3 items (10, 12, 17)
      • Physical ability questions: 1 items (21)
      • Organizational and problematic solubility questions: 3 items (23, 25, 27)
      • Communication-interaction ability questions: 3 items (30, 31, 34)
    • Interrater reliability in 12 items: (93.8%)
      • Personal causation, values, and interest questions: 1 item (8)
      • Roles and habits questions: 4 items (11, 13, 15, 16)
      • Physical ability questions: 1 item (19)
      • Organizational and problematic solubility questions: 2 items (22, 24)
      • Communication-interaction ability questions: 4 items (28, 29, 32, 33)
    • Interrater reliability in 7 items: (75%-87.5%)
      • Personal causation, values, and interest questions: 3 items (2, 7, 9)
      • Roles and habits questions: 1 item (14)
      • Physical ability questions: 2 items (18, 20)
      • Organizational and problematic solubility questions: 1 item (26)
      • Communication-interaction ability questions: 0 items
  • Psych Rehab Population (Linddhal, 2007; n = 34; mean age = 40.9 years; mean number of years since last employment = 3.9 years) Percentage of Agreement utilized
  • Excellent reliability ranging from 93.1% - 96.5%

Construct Validity

Workers with long-term disability due to psychiatric or psychosocial problems

(Linddahl et al., 2003; n = 126; age range = 20-59; those involved in work during the last year = 19%)

  • Construct validity of the DWA Scale for personal causation, values, and interests assessed by clients and professionals (RMSError = 0.12, 0.13 respectively)
  • Construct validity of the DWA Scale for roles and habits, values, and interests assessed by clients and professionals (RMSError = 0.15)
  • Construct validity of the DWA Scale for physical ability assessed by clients and professionals (RMSError = 0.15, 0.17 respectively)
  • Construct validity of the DWA Scale for organizational and problem-solving ability assessed by clients and professionals (RMSError = 0.13, 0.14 respectively)
  • Construct validity of the DWA Scale for communication ability assessed by clients and professionals (RMSError = 0.15)
  • Construct validity of the DWA Scale for physical ability assessed by clients and professionals (RMSError = 0.15, 0.17 respectively)

Psych Rehab Population: (Linddahl, 2007; n = 126; age range = 20-59; those involved in work during the last year = 19%)

DWA demonstrates validity by measuring work capacity and ability to return to work. DWA’s 5 scales correlate with an increase in the 34 tested items.

Bibliography

Durand MJ., Hong Q.N. (2013) Tools for assessing work disability. In: Loisel P., Anema J. (eds) Handbook of Work Disability. Springer, New York, NY

Linddahl, Irene (2007). Validity and Reliability of the Instrument DOA; A Dialogue about Working Ability (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Google Scholar.  J?nk?ping University,  J?nk?ping, Sweden.

Linddahl, I. Norrby, E., & Bellner, A.-L. (2003). Construct validity of the instrument DOA: A dialogue about ability related to work. Work, 20(3), 215. Retrieved from

Norrby, E. Linddahl, I., (2006). Reliability of the instrument DOA: dialogue about ability related to work. Work, 26(2), 131-139.

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Oct 15, 2024

Buss-Durkee Hostility Inve...

read more

updated Aug 28, 2024

NIH Toolbox for Assessment...

read more

updated Jul 31, 2024

PROMIS – Ability to Partic...

read more