Department of Clinical Research, EbIM, Research & Education, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Institute Humans in Complex Systems, School of Applied Psychology, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Olten, Switzerland.
PLoS One. 2020 Sep 17;15(9):e0238930. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238930. eCollection 2020.
There are currently no tools for assessing claimants' perceived fairness in work disability evaluations. In our study, we describe the development and validation of a questionnaire for this purpose.
In cooperation with subject-matter experts of Swiss insurance medicine, we developed the 30-item Basel Fairness Questionnaire (BFQ). Claimants anonymously answered the questionnaire immediately after their disability evaluation, still unaware about its outcome. For each item, there were four response options, ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". The construct validity of the BFQ was assessed by running a principal component analysis (PCA).
In 4% of the questionnaires, the claimants' perception on the disability evaluation was negative (below the median of the scale). The PCA of the items responses followed by an orthogonal rotation revealed four factors, namely (1) Interviewing Skills, (2) Rapport, (3) Transparency, and (4) Case Familiarity, explaining 63.5% of the total variance.
The ratings presumably have some positive bias by sample selection and response bias. The PCA factors corresponded to dimensions that subject-matter experts had beforehand identified as relevant. However, all item ratings were highly intercorrelated, which suggests that the presumed underlying dimensions are not independent.
The BFQ represents the first self-administered instrument for measuring claimants' perceived fairness of work disability evaluations, allowing the assessment of informational, procedural, and interactive justice from the perspective of claimants. In cooperation with Swiss assessment centres, we plan to implement a refined version of the BFQ as feedback instrument in work disability evaluations.
目前尚无工具可用于评估索赔人在工作残疾评估中的感知公平性。在我们的研究中，我们描述了为此目的开发和验证的问卷。
我们与瑞士保险医学的主题专家合作，开发了 30 项巴塞尔公平问卷（BFQ）。索赔人在残疾评估后立即匿名回答问卷，仍然不知道其结果。对于每个项目，有四个回答选项，范围从“强烈不同意”到“强烈同意”。通过运行主成分分析（PCA）来评估 BFQ 的构念效度。
在 4%的问卷中，索赔人对残疾评估的看法是负面的（低于量表的中位数）。对项目反应进行的 PCA 随后进行正交旋转，揭示了四个因素，即（1）访谈技巧，（2）融洽，（3）透明度和（4）案例熟悉度，解释了总方差的 63.5%。
评分可能存在一些正偏差，因为样本选择和响应偏差。PCA 因素与主题专家事先确定为相关的维度相对应。然而，所有项目评分都高度相关，这表明假定的潜在维度不是独立的。
BFQ 代表了第一个用于衡量索赔人对工作残疾评估感知公平性的自我管理工具，允许从索赔人的角度评估信息、程序和互动公正。我们计划与瑞士评估中心合作，将 BFQ 的精炼版本作为工作残疾评估中的反馈工具实施。
