The abilitator summary scale items and summary scores

Back to summary metadata
dc.contributor.affiliationFinnish Institute of Occupational Health - Wikström, Miia
dc.contributor.affiliationFinnish Institute of Occupational Health - Joensuu, Matti
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Helsinki - Kouvonen, Anne
dc.contributor.authorWikström, Miia
dc.contributor.authorJoensuu, Matti
dc.contributor.authorKouvonen, Anne
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-24T15:19:03Z
dc.date.issued2024-04-16
dc.date.issued2024-04-16
dc.descriptionObjectives According to the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) panel, structural validity describes how well Patient-Reported Outcome Measures' (PROM) scores reflect the dimensions of the measured construct. Reaching structural validity is important for PROMs that reflect unidimensional effect indicators, but not for formative PROMs in which the items are not necessarily correlated. The main purpose of this study was to examine the structural components of the Abilitator, a co-developed self-report questionnaire on work ability and functioning for the population in a weak labour market position. Methods We examined to what extent the Abilitator has reflective and formative elements in its five summary scales: "C. Inclusion", "D. Mind", "E. Everyday life", "F. Skills", and "G. Body". The Abilitator data sample (n=4555, men 51%, mean age 37 years) was collected in 2017–2022 by the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health in cooperation with the European Social Fund Priority 5 projects in which the participants have multiple challenges to gain employment. For the structural components and validity analysis we implemented both Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Results Based on the COSMIN criteria for structural validity, the Abilitator reached approximate model fit with CFA when we analysed the different concepts of the questionnaire separately rather than in one unified model. An exception was "E. Everyday life" which was a formative summary scale, and it did not reach approximate fit. EFA showed that the items in the Abilitator's summary scales loaded on ten factors. Conclusions The Abilitator had both reflective and formative elements in its structure. It reached structural validity in those separate concepts that were based on a reflective model. This study revealed interesting connections between different aspects of the Abilitator and produced valuable information for further  modification of the questionnaire.
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.m905qfv86
dc.identifier.urihttps://hydatakatalogi-test-24.it.helsinki.fi/handle/123456789/10357
dc.rightsOpen
dc.rights.licensecc-zero
dc.subjectUnemployment
dc.subjectWork ability
dc.subjectSelf-report
dc.subjectfunctioning
dc.subjectPatient-Reported Outcome Measures
dc.subjectPublic health
dc.subjectStructural validity
dc.titleThe abilitator summary scale items and summary scores
dc.typedataset
dc.typedataset

Files

Repositories

Zenodo