Primary Image

Rehabilitation Measures Database

Last Updated

Purpose

To evaluate an individual’s ability to complete current and future work demands, considering factors such as diagnosed illnesses, number of illness-related work absences, estimated illness impact on work performance, and mental ability reserves. 

Acronym WAI

Area of Assessment

Activities & Participation
General Health & Development
Mental Functions

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Free

Cost Description

Must request the WAI directly from the test developers

https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org/instruments/work-ability-index#basic_descriptions

Authors
Tuomi K ; Ilmarinen J ; Jahkola A ; Katajarinne L ; Tulkki A ; Oja G
Kaija Tuomi
The Finnish Institute of Occupational Health
Topeliuksenkatu
41 a A
FIN-00250
Helsinki
Finland

Contact information
Juhani Ilmarinen
Juhani Ilmarinen Consulting Ltd.
Ruuvitie2
01650 Vantaa
Finland
E-mail: juhani.ilmarinen@jic.fi

CDE Status

Not a CDE--last searched 8/17/2025

Populations

Key Descriptions

  • The WAI is a questionnaire with 7 sets of items for employees to complete:
    1) Current work ability compared with the lifetime best
    2) Work ability in relation to the demands of the job
    3) Number of current diseases diagnosed by a physician
    4) Estimated work impairment due to diseases
    5) Sick leave during the past year (12 months)
    6) Own prognosis of work ability two years from now
    7) Mental resources
  • It takes 10-15 minutes to complete and 3-5 minutes to evaluate and score.
  • Scores range from 7 to 49, and a higher total indicates higher ability to work.
  • The scoring groups correlate to 4 work ability actions: Poor = reinstate work ability; Medium: improve work ability; Good: support work ability; and Very Good: maintain work ability.

Number of Items

7 items, with variable number of questions per item.

Equipment Required

  • Assessment and writing implement

Time to Administer

10-15 minutes

An additional 3-5 minutes is required for evaluation and scoring.

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Reviewed in August 2025 by Master of Occupational Therapy students Yousif Malik, Emily McGrath, Madison Kyle, Chi H. Dai, & Shyla Grace under the supervision of faculty mentor: Brittany St. John, PhD, MPH, OTR/L, Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle

 

ICF Domain

Activity
Participation
Body Function

Measurement Domain

General Health
Activities of Daily Living
Cognition

Professional Association Recommendation

None found--last searched 8/17/2025 

Considerations

  • Available in 29 languages (originally in Finnish)
  • Non-specific overall health survey
  • A single-item version of the WAI (the Work Ability Score or WAS) has been validated in patients with chronic low back pain (Boekel et al., 2022)

 

Non-Patient

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Adult Workers: (Gonzalez-Dominguez et al., 2024; n = 233, mean age 41.55 (7.51), male = 206 (88.4%), Spanish translation of WAI for adult workers at a multinational aeronautical company)

  • SEM (calculated) for overall WAI = 2.76

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Adult Workers: (Gonzalez-Dominguez et al., 2024)

  • MDC (calculated) for overall WAI = 7.65

 

Cut-Off Scores

Adult Workers: (Jääskeläinen et al., 2016; n = 5251; mean age = 50.4 (3.6) years, female = 2957 (56.3%), sample of Finnish municipal employees)

  • Optimal cut-off points based on the Youden index: for men = 24.0 (sensitivity 58.5% and specificity 67.15); for women = 23.9 (sensitivity 75.3% and specificity 71.3%)
  • ≤ 27 indicates poor WAI (sensitivity 49.2%; specificity 82.9%)
  • ≥ 36 indicates moderate WAI (sensitivity 84.2%; specificity 44.3%)

 

Test/Retest Reliability

Adult Workers: (De Zwart et al., 2002; = 97, mean age = 51 years (age range = 40-60 years), male = 96 (99%), test-retest interval = 4 weeks, employees in Dutch construction industry) 

  • Acceptable: No significant difference in the mean WAI score at the group level between test (mean WAI score = 40.4 (6.1)) and retest (39.9 (6.4)).
    • 25% of subjects (24 out of 97) reported the exact same score on test and retest. 
    • 95% of the individual differences between the two test scores were found to be < 6.86 points (2 x SD)

 

Internal Consistency

Adult Workers: (Mateo Rodriguez et al., 2021; n = 1184, mean age = 56.5 (5.7), female = 71.1%, workers at six Spanish health care centers, Spanish translation of WAI)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha (= 1062) = 0.81

     

Adult Workers: (da Silva Jr et al., 2011; n = 1436, mean age = 40 (12.7) years, age range = 16-70, female = 87.3%, nursing workers in Brazil, Brazilian Portuguese translation of WAI)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.8; McDonald’s omega (ω) = 0.87

 

Adult Workers: (Gonzalez-Dominguez, 2024)

  • Adequate: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74

 

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Predictive validity:

Adult Workers: (Jääskeläinen et al., 2016)

  • Poor ability of WAI scores to predict disability retirement among men from 1981 to 1985 (AUC = 0.68 (95% CI 0.64-0.72)
  • Adequate ability of WAI scores to predict disability retirement among women from 1981 to 1985 (AUC = 0.79 (CI 0.75-0.82)

 

Adult Workers: (Lundin et al., 2017, n = 1786, mean age = 42.7 years, age range = 25-60 years, from stratified random national sample of 25 to 75 year-olds living in Sweden in 2000 in the Work, Health, & Retirement Study)

  • Acceptable predictive validity for long-term sickness absence (LTSA; ≥ 90 consecutive days) over 4 years — AUC = 0.79 (95% CI 0.76–0.82)
  • Three items may be suitable proxies of the full WAI in predicting LTSA for public health surveys: I) Current work ability compared to lifetime best (AUC = 0.72 (95% CI 0.69–0.76)); III) Number of current illness diagnosed by a physician (AUC = 0.71 (95% CI 0.68–0.74)); and IV) Estimated work impairment due to diseases (AUC = 0.76 (95% CI 0.73–0.80))

 

Adult Workers: (Mateo Rodrigeuz, 2021)

  • Significant ability of WAI scores to predict scores on the SF-12 was shown via a linear regression model (R2 = 63.2, = 1204.85, < 0.001)

     

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Adult Workers: (Gonzalez-Dominguez, 2024)

  • Adequate correlation between overall WAI and workers’ self-assessment of health status (rs = 0.48, < 0.001)

 

Adult Workers: (Mateo Rodrigeuz, 2021)

  • Principal components analysis suggested the presence of one single factor, with this one-factor model explaining 50.49% of overall accumulated variance. The one-factor model showed acceptable fit in terms of the comparative fit index (CFI) (0.92) and normalized fit index (NFI) (0.92), but the chi-square index (= 0.000), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) (0.836), and RMSEA (0.111) values were not acceptable.
  • A two-factor model outperformed the one-factor model (X= 59.52, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06). Factor 1, “subjectively estimated work ability,” incorporated items 3, 4, and 5; and factor 2, “ill-health-related ability,” incorporated items 1, 2, 6, and 7.

 

Discriminant validity:

Adult Workers: (Gonzalez-Dominguez, 2024)

  • Significant ability of the WAI to discriminate between younger (≤ 44 years of age, mean WAI score = 43.3 (5.44)) and older (≥ 45 years of age, mean WAI score = 41.6 (5.44)) workers (U = 4226.00, = 0.005)

 

Adult Workers: (Mateo Rodrigeuz, 2021)

  • Adequate ability of the WAI to discriminate between “good” and “poor” groups based on median self-reported health scores (AUC = 0.87 (95% CI = 0.85-0.90))

 

Content Validity

Adult Workers: (Mateo Rodriguez et al., 2021)

  • Content evaluation of the Spanish version of the questionnaire was conducted via a two-stage process:
    1. An analysis of applicability/acceptability and content validity by a gender-balanced sample of 30 workers was conducted via structured interviews by trained members of the research team. Questions that posed problems to at least 15% of participants, had greater than 10% missing data, or had ceiling and floor effects higher than 15% were reviewed and improved.
    2. The final version of the questionnaire was reviewed by an expert panel of 10 working health specialists via the Delphi technique. Participants expressed their opinions through an evaluation matrix and scored each question according to the criteria of clarity and applicability. Questions were considered valid when expert panel responses had an agreement level of 70% or higher for the most positive response (i.e., “a lot”).

 

Responsiveness

Adult Workers: (Jääskeläinen et al., 2016)

  • Mean 4-year change in WAI total score = -2.8 points for both men and women

 

Bibliography

Boekel, I., Dutmer, A. L., Schiphorst Preuper, H. R., & Reneman, M. F. (2022). Validation of the work ability index—single item and the pain disability index—work item in patients with chronic low back pain. European Spine Journal, 31(4), 943–952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07109-x 

da Silva Jr., S. H. A., Vasconselos, A. G. G., Griep, R. H., & Rotenberg, L. (2011). Validity and reliability of the Work Ability Index (WAI) in nursing workers. Cadernos de Saude Publica, 27(6) https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2011000600005

de Zwart, B. C. (2002). Test-retest reliability of the work ability index questionnaire. Occupational Medicine, 52(4), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/52.4.177 

González-Domínguez, M. E., Fernández-García, E., Paloma-Castro, O., González-López, R. M., Rivas Pérez, M. P., López-Molina, L., García-Jiménez, J., & Romero-Sánchez, J. M. (2024). Work ability index: Psychometric Testing in Aeronautical Industry Workers. Safety and Health at Work, 15(1), 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2023.12.001 

Jääskeläinen, A., Kausto, J., Seitsamo, J., Ojajärvi, A., NygÃ¥rd, C.-H., Arjas, E., & Leino-Arjas, P. (2016). Work ability index and perceived work ability as predictors of disability pension: A prospective study among Finnish Municipal Employees. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment &amp; Health, 42(6), 490–499. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3598 

Lundin, A., Leijon, O., Vaez, M., Hallgren, M., & Torgén, M. (2017). Predictive validity of the work ability index and its individual items in the general population. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 45(4), 350–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494817702759 

Mateo Rodríguez, I., Knox, E. C., Oliver Hernández, C., & Daponte Codina, A. (2021). Psychometric Properties of the work ability index in health centre workers in Spain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(24), 12988. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182412988