Rehabilitation Measures
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Work Experience Measurement Scale

Work Experience Measurement Scale

Last Updated

download

Description SHIS and WEMS.pdf

Purpose

The Work Experience Measurement Scale (WEMS) is a 32-item scale that assesses the experiences of work and workplace-related situations from a positive, salutogenic perspective. 
 

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym WEMS

Area of Assessment

Quality of Life

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Cost

Free

Actual Cost

$0.00

Cost Description

The questionnaires may not be changed in content or design but can be used in combination with other questions or questionnaires. Any other use or copying is not permitted. After completing the study, we are grateful to receive a copy (digital or hard copy) of the report, article or other presentation of results, where one or both questionnaires have been used. This allows us to create a better theoretical and practical knowledgebase over the two instruments. They can be sent to;
Email address: shis-wems@hkr.se
Postal mail can be sent to any of us below in the following
Mailing address: School of Health and Society, Kristianstad University, 291 88 Kristianstad, Sweden

Populations

Allied Health Care Professions
Non-Specific Patient Population

Key Descriptions

  • 32-item 6-point Likert scale assessing 6 indices of work experiences
    - Management (MT), 6 questions, score ranges 6-36
    - Reorganization (RO), 6 questions, score ranges 6-36
    - Internal work experience (IW), 6 questions, score ranges 6-36
    - Pressure of time (PT), 3 questions, score ranges 3-18
    - Autonomy (AY), 4 question, score ranges 4-24
    - Supportive working conditions (SW), 7 questions, score ranges 7-42
  • Each question is worth a maximum of 6 points, with “Totally agree” yielding 6 points and “Totally disagree” yielding 1 point.
  • Total score ranges from 32 – 192 points. High scores indicate a positive experience and/or perception of work.
  • It is possible to standardize the index values for the WEMS. A standardization makes the results easier to understand and compare. The standardization is done so that all index values varies between 0 and 100% regardless of their initial range of variation. The standardized index value is calculated as follows: 100 x (index value - minimum of theoretical value) / (maximum - minimum).

Number of Items

32

Equipment Required

  • Copy of assessment

Time to Administer

5-10 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

+

years

Instrument Reviewers

Tri Pham, UT Southwestern Medical School

ICF Domain

Participation
Activity

Measurement Domain

Participation & Activities

Considerations

The questionnaires may not be changed in content or design but can be used in combination with other questions or questionnaires. Any other use or copying is not permitted. After completing the study, the assessment creators would be grateful to receive a copy (digital or hard copy) of the report, article or other presentation of results, where the questionnaire has been used. This allows them to create a better theoretical and practical knowledge base over the instrument. The results can be sent to shis-wems@hkr.se or petra.nilsson@hkr.se.

Allied Health Care Professions

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

Hospital Employees: (Nillson et al., 2010; n = 95)

  • Poor to acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.36-0.71)

Internal Consistency

Hospital Employees

  • Excellent internal consistency for indices MT, RO, IW, AY, and SW (Cronbach’s α = 0.80-0.89) (Nillson et al., 2010; n= 345-433)
  • Adequate internal consistency for index PT (Cronbach’s α = 0.71) (Nillson et al., 2010; n = 425)
  • Excellent internal consistent for all indices (Cronbach’s α = 0.85-0.96) (Nillson et al., 2013; n = 505)
  • Excellent internal consistency for WEMS total (Cronbach’s α = 0.93) (Andru?kien? et al., 2015; n = 714)

Construct Validity

Convergent Validity

Hospital Employees

  • Adequate correlation between indices IW (r = 0.32) and PT (0.32) with self-rated health (Nillson et al., 2010; n=425-431)
  • Poor correlation between indices MT (r = 0.22), RO (0.10), AY (0.17), and SW (0.13) with self-rated health (Nillson et al., 2010; n=345-433)
  • Adequate correlation between index IW (r = 0.39) with self-rated quality of life (Nillson et al., 2010; n=431)
  • Poor correlation between indices MT (r = 0.18), RO (0.18), PT (0.28), AY (0.18), and SW (0.06) with self-rated quality of life (Nillson et al., 2010; n=345-433)
  • Adequate correlation between WEMS total score (r = 0.56) and UWE-9 (Nillson et al., 2013; n = 405-453)
  • Excellent correlation between index IW (r = 0.61) with the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-9 (Nillson et al., 2013; n = 432-491)
  • Adequate correlation between indices SW (r = 0.48), AY (0.34), MT (0.35), and RO (0.36) with the UWE-9 (Nillson et al., 2013; n = 421-490)
  • Adequate correlation between WEMS total score (r = 0.51) and SHIS (r = 0.51) (Nillson et al., 2013; n = 405-453)
  • Adequate correlation between all indices (r = 0.30-0.43) and Salutogenic Health Indicator Scale  (Nillson et al., 2013; n = 421-491)
  • Adequate correlation between well-being (r = 0.31) and quality of life (0.32) with WEMS total score (Nillson et al., 2013; n = 405-453)
  • Adequate correlation between WEMS total score (r = 0.59) and SHIS (Andru?kien? et al., 2015; n = 714)
  • Adequate correlation between WEMS total care (r = 0.48) and SHIS (Piekut? et al., 2016; n = 386)

Non-Specific Patient Population

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

Teachers: (Nilson et al., 2017; n = 39)

  • Poor to acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.39-0.80)

 

Municipality Employees: (T?rnquist Agosti et al., 2017; n = 33)

  • Poor to acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC > 0.60)

Internal Consistency

Dental Employees: (Linkmark et al., 2018; n = 301)

  • Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.95)

 

School Employees: (Andru?kien? et al., 2015; n = 334)

  • Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.94)

 

Teachers: (Nillson et al., 2017; n = 338)

  • Excellent internal consistency for all indices (Cronbach’s α = 0.80-0.90)

 

Municipality Employees: (T?rnquist Agosti et al., 2017; n = 444-478)

  • Excellent internal consistency for all indices (Cronbach’s α = 0.85-0.92)

Construct Validity

Convergent Validity

Dental Employees: (Linkmark et al., 2018; n = 301)

  • Adequate correlation between WEMS total score and Sense of Coherence Questionnaire (r = 0.43)
  • Adequate correlation between WEMS total score and SHIS (r = 0.45)

 

Teachers

  • Excellent correlation between index PT (r = 0.62) and Work-Life Balance (Nillson et al., 2017; n = 327-331)
  • Adequate correlation between index AY (r = 0.47), SW (0.41), IW (0.35), and MT (0.31) with Work-Life Balance (Nillson et al., 2017; n = 327-331)
  • Adequate correlation between WEMS total score (r = 0.44) and accuracy of selecting the learning method (Ria et al., 2018; n = 129)
  • Adequate correlation between WEMS total score (r = 0.54) and Work-Life Questionnaire (Ria et al., 2018; n = 129)

 

Municipality Employees: (T?rnquist Agosti et al., 2017; n = 444-478)

  • Adequate correlation between index SW with Work-Life Balance (r = 0.47), SHIS (0.41), quality of life (0.39), recovery (0.40), well-being (0.32), self-esteem and optimism (0.39), and living situation (0.43)
  • Adequate correlation between index IW with Work-Life Balance (r = 0.48), SHIS (0.45), quality of life (0.44), recovery (0.43), well-being (.35), self-esteem and optimism (0.41), and living situation (0.48)
  • Adequate correlation between index AY with Work-Life Balance (r = 0.34), quality of life (0.32), and living situation (0.30)
  • Adequate correlation between index PT with Work-Life Balance (r = 0.44), and recovery (0.38)
  • Adequate correlation between index MT with Work-Life Balance (r = 0.30), and living situation (0.30)

Content Validity

“The broad theoretical base of the WEMS, in addition to discussions on its theoretical content among researchers in the work field, gives the WEMS credibility and contributes to content validity. When the content of the WEMS was compared to the content of similar instruments (e.g. Health and Work Questionnaire, Quality Work Competence Instrument, Job Diagnostic Survey), as an indication of content validity, its theoretical content was in conformity with and suggested a clear relation to that of other instruments.” (Nillson et al., 2010)

“The study can be considered to have high content validity, also due to the evaluation by subject matter experts of whether the questions were essential and useful, i.e. covered all aspects of the theoretical definition of each concept.” (Ejlertsson et al., 2018)

Face Validity

“A pilot study was conducted to examine the face validity of the instruments, i.e., to determine that the questionnaire covered the concept it purported to measure in a comprehensible way. Different professions in primary health care – from health care centers not participating in the main study – completed the questionnaire, while commenting on the questions and their responses to the questions, a method called cognitive think-aloud interviewing.” (Ejlertsson et al., 2018)

Bibliography

Nilsson, P., Bringsén, A., Andersson, H. I., & Ejlertsson, G. (2010). Development and quality analysis of the Work Experience Measurement Scale (WEMS). Work (Reading, Mass.), 35(2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2010-0967

Nilsson, P., Andersson, H. I., & Ejlertsson, G. (2013). The Work Experience Measurement Scale (WEMS): a useful tool in workplace health promotion. Work (Reading, Mass.), 45(3), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-121541

Andru?kien?, J., Kuzmien?, A., Martink?nas, A., Jurgutis, A., Ejlertsson, G., & Andersson, I. (2015). Psychosocial work experiences related to health: A study of Lithuanian hospital employees. Work (Reading, Mass.), 53(3), 669–677. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-152171

Lindmark, U., Wagman, P., W?hlin, C., & Rolander, B. (2018). Workplace health in dental care - a salutogenic approach. International journal of dental hygiene, 16(1), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/idh.12257

Andru?kien?, J., Kuzmien?, A., Martink?nas, A., Jurgutis, A., Ejlertsson, G., & Andersson, I. (2015). Psychosocial work experiences related to health: A study of Lithuanian hospital employees. Work (Reading, Mass.), 53(3), 669–677. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-152171

Nilsson Lindstr?m, P., Ejlertsson, G., Andersson, I., & Bringsén, ?. (2018). Evaluating the usability of two salutogenic instruments on health and work experience, using cognitive interviewing. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 33(3-4), 241-259.

Ejlertsson, L., Heijbel, B., Ejlertsson, G., & Andersson, I. (2018). Recovery, work-life balance and work experiences important to self-rated health: A questionnaire study on salutogenic work factors among Swedish primary health care employees. Work, 59(1), 155-163.

Ria, V., Hendratno, H., & Jannah, M. (2018, December). Are You a Zaman-Now Teacher? The correlation between work experience and meaning of work with the accuracy of selecting learning methods in early childhood education. In 2nd International Conference on Education Innovation (ICEI 2018). Atlantis Press.

Piekut?, E., Andru?kien?, J., Martink?nas, A., Jurgutis, A., Ejlertsson, G., & Andersson, I. (2016). ASSUMPTIONS OF WORKPLACE HEALTH PROMOTION IN PRIMARY HEALTH CARE. Professional Studies: Theory & Practice/Profesines Studijos: Teorija ir Praktika, (17).

T?rnquist Agosti, M., Bringsén, ?., & Andersson, I. (2017). The complexity of resources related to work-life balance and well-being–a survey among municipality employees in Sweden. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(16), 2351-2374.

Nilsson, M., Blomqvist, K., & Andersson, I. (2017). Salutogenic resources in relation to teachers’ work-life balance. Work, 56(4), 591-602.

Hansen, E., Landstad, B. J., Gundersen, K. T., & Vinberg, S. (2016). Leader-based workplace health interventions—a before–after study in Norwegian and Swedish small-scale enterprises. International Journal of Disability Management, 11.

Robertsen, ?., Siebler, F., Eisemann, M., Hegseth, M. N., F?reland, S., & Vangberg, H. B. (2018). Predictors of Respiratory Protective Equipment Use in the Norwegian Smelter Industry: The Role of the Theory of Planned Behavior, Safety Climate, and Work Experience in Understanding Protective Behavior. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1366. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01366

Bergstr?m, J., Miller, M., & Horneij, E. (2015). Work environment perceptions following relocation to open-plan offices: A twelve-month longitudinal study. Work (Reading, Mass.), 50(2), 221–228. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-131798

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 Nov 5, 2024

Leicester Cough Questionna...

read more

updated Oct 15, 2024

Buss-Durkee Hostility Inve...

read more

updated Jul 31, 2024

PROMIS – Ability to Partic...

read more