Primary Image

Assessment of Work Performance Rehab Measures Database

Assessment of Work Performance

Last Updated

Purpose

This instrument is used to assess motor skills, process skills, and social interaction skills that are involved when a person completes a  work-related activity and to see what may be a barrier or enabler for their occupational performance. This instrument is also used as an evaluation tool for sickness insurance, as well as an essential tool for vocational rehabilitation (Elin et al., 2018).

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym AWP

Area of Assessment

Attention & Working Memory
Cognition
Coordination
Functional Mobility
Language
Occupational Performance
Processing Speed

Assessment Type

Performance Measure

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$40.00

Cost Description

The website, “moho.uic.edu” houses the assessment. An account is needed to gain access to the products.

Key Descriptions

  • This measure is rated based off of three domains:
    -motor skills
    -process skills
    -social interaction skills
  • Of the 14 items, 5 address the motor skills domain, 5 address the process skills, and 4 address communication and interaction skills
  • The 14 items are rated on a 4-point ordinal rating scale:
    -(1) "incompetent performance"
    -(2) "limited performance"
    -(3) "questionable performance"
    -(4) "competent performance"

Number of Items

14

Equipment Required

  • Any equipment needed for work-

Time to Administer

 

The entire administration time of the AWP can vary from a couple hours to much longer, depending on the unique requirements of each client and the complexities and time involved with completing the work-related task. Also, the assessor’s competence and experience can impact the amount of time it takes to administer the assessment.

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Age Ranges

Adult

18 - 64

years

Instrument Reviewers

Summary was reviewed by Anthony Mercado, OTS, Ashley Sicard, OTS, Aubrey Day, OTS, and Shamshir Kang, OTS, at UIC.

ICF Domain

Body Structure
Body Function
Participation

Measurement Domain

Motor
Participation & Activities
Cognition
Activities of Daily Living

Considerations

Review the brief case description and the CD before beginning. The AWP is typically used in combination with the Worker Role Interview (WRI) and the Work Environment Impact Scale (WEIS).

Tags

LIFE Center

Mixed Populations

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Muskuloskeletal, Psychological, and Other Internal Physical Disorders: (Sandqvist et al., 2009; n=364, mean age= 45 (7.4); Swedish sample)

  • SEM for entire group (n=364)=7.4/19.08=0.388

Work-related problems: (Fan et al., 2013; n=365; mean age =44.8)

  • SEM (n=365) = 2/19.1=0.105

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Muskuloskeletal, Psychological, and Other Internal Physical Disorders: (Sandqvist et al., 2009)

  • MDC for entire group (n=364)=13.443

Internal Consistency

Work-related problems: (Fan et al., 2013)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha was .83

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Predictive Validity:

Muskuloskeletal, Psychological, and Other Internal Physical Disorders: (Sandqvist et al., 2009)

  • Adequate to excellent predictive validity of the AWP (R2=.52 of the total variance and a predictive value of Q2=.30)

Construct Validity

Muskuloskeletal, Psychological, and Other Internal Physical Disorders: (Sandqvist et al., 2009)

  • Excellent degree of correlation between the items and the component due to all 14 items on the AWP having positive loadings.

  • Adequate construct validity due to items in the three domains (musculoskeletal, psychological, and other) being relatively well clustered but still separated from each other.

Content Validity

Muskuloskeletal, Psychological, and Other Internal Physical Disorders: (Sandqvist, et al., 2008; n= 67; mean age= 44.7; Swedish sample)

  • Content validity was evaluated by 67 users with various expertise in the assessment who answered a detailed questionnaire. The majority of respondents (63.2%) thought that the AWP covered all possible aspects of observable working skills at least “to a great extent”, leading Sandqvist et al. (2008) to conclude adequate content validity.

Patients in pain rehabilitation, neurologic rehabilitation, and psychiatric care: (Karlsson et al., 2018; n = 15; mean age = 49.2; mean experience in assessing work ability = 8 years; Swedish sample)

  • Content validity was evaluated by 15 assessors in Sweden who had all administered the AWP before. Though some improvements were suggested, they concluded that all 14 skills and 3 work tasks were covered, giving the instrument adequate content validity

  • Social validity:Assessors stated that the work tasks were appropriate and acceptable to clients, indicating adequate social validity. Still, the limited sample size is not generalizable to all users and populations.

Work-related problems: (Fan et al., 2013)

  • Person-response validity: In the initial sample, 94.6% of clients fit the model’s expectations, which is slightly lower than the 95% or more that was necessary to demonstrate person-response validity. Once the 5.4% of misfit clients were removed by using infit and outfit criteria, the reduced sample showed adequate person-response validity of only 3.1% misfit.

  • Test unidimensionality: Unidimensionality was supported if identified constructs accounted for at least 60% of total variance. Since 70.4% of total variance was explained by the AWP items, adequate unidimensionality is supported.

Face Validity

Muskuloskeletal, Psychological, and Other Internal Physical Disorders: (Sandqvist et al., 2006; n= 21; mean age= not reported; Swedish sample)

  • Preliminary testing of face validity and utility of the AWP was determined by a group of 21 assessors in Sweden with varying amounts of expertise in the AWP. The testing supported further development and testing of this assessment and reported adequate face validity.

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Work-related problems: (Fan et al., 2013)

  • Excellent floor effects for all subdomains

  • Adequate ceiling effects with the highest effect found in the communication and interaction skills subdomain at 13.7%

Bibliography

Fan, C.-W., Taylor, R. R., Ekbladh, E., Hemmingsson, H., & Sandqvist, J. (2013). Evaluating the psychometric properties of a clinical vocational rehabilitation outcome measurement: The Assessment of Work Performance (AWP). OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 33(3), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.3928/15394492-20130614-01

Karlsson, E.A., Liedberg, G.M., & Sandqvist, J.L. (2018) Initial evaluation of psychometric properties of a structured work task application for the Assessment of Work Performance in a constructed environment, Disability and Rehabilitation, 40:21, 2585-2591, DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1342279

Sandqvist, J. (2007). Development and Evaluation of Validity and Utility of the Instrument Assessment of Work Performance (AWP). Linkoping: LiU-Tryck.

Sandqvist, J.L., Gullberg, M.T., Henriksson, C.M., & Gerdle, B.U. (2008). Content validity and utility of the Assessment of Work Performance (AWP). WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment, & Rehabilitation, 30(4), 441-450. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18725707

Sandqvist, J.L., Gullberg, M.T., Henriksson, C.M., Gerdle, B.U, & Bjork, M.A. (2009). Construct Validity of the Assessment of Work Performance (AWP).WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment, & Rehabilitation, 32(2):211-8. doi:10.3233/WOR-2009-0807

Sandqvist, J.L., Tornquist, J.B., & Henriksson, C.M. (2006). Assessment of Work Performance (AWP)--development of an instrument. WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment, & Rehabilitation, 26(4), 379-387. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16788257

Save now, read later.