Skip to main content

Table 1 Results measurement models of latent variables

From: Can self-reported disability assessment behaviour of insurance physicians be explained? Applying the ASE model

  Standardized factor loadings of latent variables
Scale/dimension (standardized measurement error term) A SN B* K* I# BP BA
Job satisfaction (0.84) 0,40       
Positive attitude towards WIA (0.93) 0,26       
Social security system just (0.95) 0,23       
Quality: development of skills important (0.54) 0,68       
Quality: support by management important (0.78) 0,47       
Managing by reference to quality rather than quantity, reversed (0.98)   -0,16      
Managing less by reference to production targets and outcomes, reversed (0.97)   -0,16      
Opinion of UWV and employee representative bodies important, reversed (0.35)   0,80      
Colleagues' opinion important, reversed (0.32)   0,82      
Society's opinion important, reversed (0.87)   0,37      
Work pressure (0.90)    0,31     
Emotional workload (0.93)    0,26     
Decision making authority (0.86)    -0,38     
Emotional exhaustion (0.88)    0,35     
Office culture: good cooperation (0.49)    -0,72     
Office culture: sufficient co-determination (0.39)    -0,78     
Quality: influence of staff physician beneficial (0.88)    -0,34     
Quality: influence of refresher training and consultation beneficial (0.96)    -0,19     
Quality: influence of manager beneficial (0.80)    -0,45     
Quality: influence of legislation and reorganisations not adverse (0.88)    -0,35     
Many difficult clients/cases (0.89)    0,34     
Sufficient information from the occupational physician (0.75)     0,49    
Possessing, requesting and using insufficient information (0.95)     -0,22    
Sufficient knowledge, reintegration report less often supplements medical information (0.86)     -0,37    
Stimulate recovery and return to work (0.83)      0,41   
Basic premises: residual capacity (0.93)      0,27   
Basic premises: client's account and home circumstances (0.01)      0.99   
Dedication (0.89)       0,34  
Technical interview: describe object and procedure (0.89)       0,34  
Interview management: client decisive (0.86)       -0,38  
Conflict handling: seek compromise (0.91)       0,30  
Comply with permanent full disability rules (0.82)        0,43
FAL: take account of client (0.81)        -0,43
FAL: consult with labour expert when not necessary (0.91)        -0,29
FAL and recovery time: focus on impairments (0.80)        0,45
Client approach: involved with and time for (0.84)        0,40
Fit measurement model        
Chi-square 1.47 0.29 55.9* 0.03 0.35 1.67
Degrees of freedom 3 3 66* 1 1 3
Probability 0.69 0.96 0.81* 0.85 0.56 0.64
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00
Comparative fit index 1.00 1.00 1.00* 1.00 1.00 1.00
  1. A = Attitude; SN = Social norm; B = Barriers, K = Knowledge; I = Intention; BP = Behaviour: process; BA = Behaviour: assessment.
  2. * Barriers and Knowledge were estimated in one measurement model.
  3. # Intention was estimated with the value of the measurement error of 'Basic premises: client's account and home circumstances' fixed at 0.05 to avoid a Heywood case.