The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire (WFRQ)¹⁾ measures the ability of the worker to meet a range of job demands for the twenty-first century given a particular state of health (section: wellbeing & subjective health) ^2)3)4)5)6).
Note that wellbeing at work is also assessed in Lifelines using the COPSOQ, Work Ability Index and SWING instruments.

The WRFQ measures the perceived difficulties in meeting work demands among employees given their physical health or emotional problems. Although the instrument is developed for a population with health problems, it is suitable for the general working population (and validated in this population).
Thw WRFQ was originally developed in the United States and has been cross-culturally translated and adapted into Canadian French, Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish and Dutch. All translations have been tested for their measurement properties.
The WRFQ 2.0 measures the perceived difficulties in meeting work demands among workers given their physical health or emotional problems. It consists of 27 items, divided into four subscales:

• work scheduling & output demands
• physical demands
• mental & social demands
• flexibility demands.

Using the WRFQ in lifelines, determinants important for healthy and active ageing (at work) might be identified. An important field, because the working life is a big part of ‘lives’.

A total score can be calculated. All items have to be answered on a five-point scale from 0=difficult all the time (100%), 1=difficult most of the time, 2=difficult half of the time (50%), 3=difficult some of the time, 4=difficult none of the time (0%). There is a response option ‘Does not apply to my job’. The total score is calculated by adding all answers, dividing by the number of items not missing and then multiplied with 25 to obtain percentages between 0 and 100, with higher scores indicating better work functioning. The scores on ‘Does not apply to my job’ are transformed to missing values. If 20% or more items are missing, the scale score is set to missing.

Good validity and reliability in the general Dutch working population ⁷⁾. The WRFQ 2.0 shows very good internal consistency (α), moderate test-retest reliability (ICC), good construct validity and moderate responsiveness in this working sample. The total score and the subscales show no floor effects, but do show ceiling effects. Ten hypotheses were formulated and tested. A total of 9 hypotheses were (partly) confirmed, providing evidence for the construct validity of the WRFQ. Relationships with several other constructs were explored, without pre-defined hypotheses. This provided additional insight into the construct the WRFQ aims to measure. The results show that the WRFQ was able to distinguish between groups with different levels of self-rated general health, mental health, physical health, fatigue, need for recovery and between workers with manual and non-manual jobs. Different levels of decision latitude and psychological job demands showed different scores on the WRFQ in the expected directions, although not all differences were significant