Purpose The Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) is a self-report vocational rehabilitation assessment. A comprehensive (WORQ-FULL) and a brief version (WORQ-BRIEF) are available. The purpose of this study was to investigate measurement properties of both versions in persons with physical disabilities. Methods Cross sectional and test–retest design. Adults with physical disabilities in vocational rehabilitation were included. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha), test–retest reliability (intra-class correlation; ICC), agreement between sessions (Bland–Altman Plots), criterion validity (ICC and agreement with Bland–Altman Plots between WORQ-FULL and WORQ-BRIEF) and convergent validity with the Work Ability Index -Single item (WAS) and the EuroQOL 5D-5L were analyzed. Results Out of the 91 individuals who agreed to participate, 74 (81%) returned questionnaire T1 and 49 (54%) participants returned questionnaire T2 within the maximum time interval (= 27 days). At T2, 28 (57%) participants reported no medical changes compared to T1. Median age was 49 (IQR 40–60), 57% were male, 47% had experienced a stroke and 27% a spinal cord injury (n = 49). Internal consistency was good: 0.95/0.95/0.94 for the WORQ-FULL and 0.88/0.89/0.85 for the WORQ-BRIEF (n = 74/n = 48/n = 28, respectively). Test–retest reliabilitywas good: ICC = 0.86/0.85 for the WORQ-FULL and ICC = 0.87/0.86 for the WORQ-BRIEF (n = 49/ n = 28). Bland Altman plots suggested a higher score at T1. As for criterion validity of the WORQ-FULL versus the WORQ-BRIEF, ICC was good (ICC = 0.84; n = 74), however Bland Altman plots indicated potential bias. Correlations with the WAS/EuroQOL 5D-5L were variable: r = -0.24/r = -0.57 (WORQ-FULL) and r = -0.28/-0.65 (WORQ-BRIEF). Conclusions The WORQ showed good internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Agreement demonstrated large score differences are needed to indicate change beyond random chance at individual level, whereas small changes are sufficient at group level. Criterion validity of the WORQ-FULL versus the WORQ-BRIEF was supported, however, agreement demonstrated moderate to large score differences are needed to indicate change beyond random chance at individual level, whereas small changes are sufficient at group level. This indicates the WORQ-FULL and WORQ-BRIEF are better not used interchangeably. Correlation analyses provided better insight in the validity of the WORQ. Convergent validity was supported for the WORQ-BRIEF with the EuroQoL 5D-5L (r = -0.65).

目的工作康复问卷 (WORQ) 是一种自我报告的职业康复评估。提供综合版 (WORQ-FULL) 和简要版 (WORQ-BRIEF)。本研究的目的是调查两种版本在身体残疾者中的测量特性。方法横截面和重测设计。包括职业康复中的身体残疾成年人。内部一致性（Cronbach's alpha）、重测信度（类内相关性；ICC）、会话之间的一致性（Bland-Altman 图）、标准效度（ICC 和 WORQ-FULL 和 WORQ-BRIEF 之间的 Bland-Altman 图的一致性）分析了工作能力指数 - 单项 (WAS) 和 EuroQOL 5D-5L 的收敛效度。结果在同意参与的 91 人中，74 人（81%）在最大时间间隔（=27 天）内返回问卷 T1，49 人（54%）返回问卷 T2。在 T2 时，28 名 (57%) 参与者报告与 T1 相比没有医疗变化。中位年龄为 49 岁（IQR 40-60），57% 为男性，47% 经历过中风，27% 经历过脊髓损伤（n = 49）。内部一致性良好：WORQ-FULL 为 0.95/0.95/0.94，WORQ-BRIEF 为 0.88/0.89/0.8​​5（分别为 n = 74/n = 48/n = 28）。重测信度良好：WORQ-FULL 的 ICC = 0.86/0.85，WORQ-BRIEF 的 ICC = 0.87/0.86 (n = 49/n = 28)。平淡的奥特曼图表明 T1 的得分更高。至于 WORQ-FULL 与 WORQ-BRIEF 的标准效度，ICC 很好（ICC = 0.84；n = 74），但 Bland Altman 图表明存在潜在偏差。结论WORQ 显示出良好的内部一致性和重测信度。协议表明，需要较大的分数差异来表明在个人水平上超出随机机会的变化，而在群体水平上，小的变化就足够了。支持 WORQ-FULL 与 WORQ-BRIEF 的标准有效性，然而，协议表明需要中等到较大的分数差异来表明在个人层面上超出随机机会的变化，而在群体层面上小的变化就足够了。这表明 WORQ-FULL 和 WORQ-BRIEF 最好不要互换使用。相关性分析为 WORQ 的有效性提供了更好的洞察力。使用 EuroQoL 5D-5L (r = -0.65) 的 WORQ-BRIEF 支持收敛效度。