Measuring Work Functioning: Validity of a Weighted Composite Work Functioning Approach
Purpose To examine the construct validity of a weighted composite work functioning measurement approach. Methods Workers (health-impaired/healthy) (n = 117) completed a composite measure survey that recorded four central work functioning aspects with existing scales: capacity to work, quality of wor...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of occupational rehabilitation 2015-09, Vol.25 (3), p.537-542 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 542 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 537 |
| container_title | Journal of occupational rehabilitation |
| container_volume | 25 |
| creator | Boezeman, Edwin J. Sluiter, Judith K. Nieuwenhuijsen, Karen |
| description | Purpose
To examine the construct validity of a weighted composite work functioning measurement approach.
Methods
Workers (health-impaired/healthy) (n = 117) completed a composite measure survey that recorded four central work functioning aspects with existing scales: capacity to work, quality of work performance, quantity of work, and recovery from work. Previous derived weights reflecting the relative importance of these aspects of work functioning were used to calculate the composite weighted work functioning score of the workers. Work role functioning, productivity, and quality of life were used for validation. Correlations were calculated and norms applied to examine convergent and divergent construct validity. A
t
test was conducted and a norm applied to examine discriminative construct validity.
Results
Overall the weighted composite work functioning measure demonstrated construct validity. As predicted, the weighted composite score correlated (
p
.60) with work role functioning and productivity (
convergent construct validity
), and moderately (.30 |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10926-014-9560-3 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1717499857</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A714971976</galeid><sourcerecordid>A714971976</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c608t-2fd22294a3bcd9d7367184e09a8ec42fb1f80c6993da1b6849bffd0036418d203</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUtv1TAQhSNERR_wA9igSGzYpIwf8YPd1RWlSEXdQLu0HD9uXZI42Mmi_x5Ht-WNKi9sjb5zZsanql4iOEUA_G1GIDFrANFGtgwa8qQ6Qi0nDWFCPC1vaEkDVPDD6jjnWwCQguNn1SFuW0YpkUfV1Sen85LCuKuvY_pany2jmUMcS-FdfaX7YMN8V0df6_rahd3N7Gy9jcMUc5jdX5J6M00panPzvDrwus_uxf19Un05e_95e95cXH74uN1cNIaBmBvsLcZYUk06Y6XlhHEkqAOphTMU-w55AYZJSaxGHRNUdt5bAMIoEhYDOane7H1L22-Ly7MaQjau7_Xo4pIV4ohTKUX5lMdRKBRgjgr6-g_0Ni5pLIusFJWEMUR-UjvdOxVGH-ekzWqqNhxRyZHkrFCn_6DKsW4IJo7Oh1L_TYD2ApNizsl5NaUw6HSnEKg1drWPXZXY1Rq7Wkd5dT_w0g3O_lA85FwAvAfytGbt0i8b_df1OxKKtKM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1704936613</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Measuring Work Functioning: Validity of a Weighted Composite Work Functioning Approach</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Boezeman, Edwin J. ; Sluiter, Judith K. ; Nieuwenhuijsen, Karen</creator><creatorcontrib>Boezeman, Edwin J. ; Sluiter, Judith K. ; Nieuwenhuijsen, Karen</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To examine the construct validity of a weighted composite work functioning measurement approach.
Methods
Workers (health-impaired/healthy) (n = 117) completed a composite measure survey that recorded four central work functioning aspects with existing scales: capacity to work, quality of work performance, quantity of work, and recovery from work. Previous derived weights reflecting the relative importance of these aspects of work functioning were used to calculate the composite weighted work functioning score of the workers. Work role functioning, productivity, and quality of life were used for validation. Correlations were calculated and norms applied to examine convergent and divergent construct validity. A
t
test was conducted and a norm applied to examine discriminative construct validity.
Results
Overall the weighted composite work functioning measure demonstrated construct validity. As predicted, the weighted composite score correlated (
p
< .001) strongly (
r
> .60) with work role functioning and productivity (
convergent construct validity
), and moderately (.30 <
r
< .60) with physical quality of life and less strongly than work role functioning and productivity with mental quality of life (
divergent validity
). Further, the weighted composite measure detected that health-impaired workers show with a large effect size (Cohen’s d > .80) significantly worse work functioning than healthy workers (
discriminative validity
).
Conclusion
The weighted composite work functioning measurement approach takes into account the relative importance of the different work functioning aspects and demonstrated good convergent, fair divergent, and good discriminative construct validity.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1053-0487</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-3688</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10926-014-9560-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25564439</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Adult ; Clinical Psychology ; Efficiency ; Employees ; Employers ; Environmental Health ; Female ; Health Psychology ; Humans ; Male ; Medical research ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Occupational health ; Occupational Medicine/Industrial Medicine ; Orthopedics ; Participation ; Physiology ; Productivity ; Quality of Life ; Questionnaires ; Regression analysis ; Rehabilitation ; Reproducibility of Results ; Studies ; Supervisors ; Unemployment ; Validation studies ; Validity ; Work - standards ; Work Capacity Evaluation ; Work measurement ; Workers ; Workloads</subject><ispartof>Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2015-09, Vol.25 (3), p.537-542</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2015 Springer</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c608t-2fd22294a3bcd9d7367184e09a8ec42fb1f80c6993da1b6849bffd0036418d203</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c608t-2fd22294a3bcd9d7367184e09a8ec42fb1f80c6993da1b6849bffd0036418d203</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10926-014-9560-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10926-014-9560-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25564439$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Boezeman, Edwin J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sluiter, Judith K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nieuwenhuijsen, Karen</creatorcontrib><title>Measuring Work Functioning: Validity of a Weighted Composite Work Functioning Approach</title><title>Journal of occupational rehabilitation</title><addtitle>J Occup Rehabil</addtitle><addtitle>J Occup Rehabil</addtitle><description>Purpose
To examine the construct validity of a weighted composite work functioning measurement approach.
Methods
Workers (health-impaired/healthy) (n = 117) completed a composite measure survey that recorded four central work functioning aspects with existing scales: capacity to work, quality of work performance, quantity of work, and recovery from work. Previous derived weights reflecting the relative importance of these aspects of work functioning were used to calculate the composite weighted work functioning score of the workers. Work role functioning, productivity, and quality of life were used for validation. Correlations were calculated and norms applied to examine convergent and divergent construct validity. A
t
test was conducted and a norm applied to examine discriminative construct validity.
Results
Overall the weighted composite work functioning measure demonstrated construct validity. As predicted, the weighted composite score correlated (
p
< .001) strongly (
r
> .60) with work role functioning and productivity (
convergent construct validity
), and moderately (.30 <
r
< .60) with physical quality of life and less strongly than work role functioning and productivity with mental quality of life (
divergent validity
). Further, the weighted composite measure detected that health-impaired workers show with a large effect size (Cohen’s d > .80) significantly worse work functioning than healthy workers (
discriminative validity
).
Conclusion
The weighted composite work functioning measurement approach takes into account the relative importance of the different work functioning aspects and demonstrated good convergent, fair divergent, and good discriminative construct validity.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Clinical Psychology</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Employees</subject><subject>Employers</subject><subject>Environmental Health</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health Psychology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Occupational health</subject><subject>Occupational Medicine/Industrial Medicine</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Participation</subject><subject>Physiology</subject><subject>Productivity</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Supervisors</subject><subject>Unemployment</subject><subject>Validation studies</subject><subject>Validity</subject><subject>Work - standards</subject><subject>Work Capacity Evaluation</subject><subject>Work measurement</subject><subject>Workers</subject><subject>Workloads</subject><issn>1053-0487</issn><issn>1573-3688</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUtv1TAQhSNERR_wA9igSGzYpIwf8YPd1RWlSEXdQLu0HD9uXZI42Mmi_x5Ht-WNKi9sjb5zZsanql4iOEUA_G1GIDFrANFGtgwa8qQ6Qi0nDWFCPC1vaEkDVPDD6jjnWwCQguNn1SFuW0YpkUfV1Sen85LCuKuvY_pany2jmUMcS-FdfaX7YMN8V0df6_rahd3N7Gy9jcMUc5jdX5J6M00panPzvDrwus_uxf19Un05e_95e95cXH74uN1cNIaBmBvsLcZYUk06Y6XlhHEkqAOphTMU-w55AYZJSaxGHRNUdt5bAMIoEhYDOane7H1L22-Ly7MaQjau7_Xo4pIV4ohTKUX5lMdRKBRgjgr6-g_0Ni5pLIusFJWEMUR-UjvdOxVGH-ekzWqqNhxRyZHkrFCn_6DKsW4IJo7Oh1L_TYD2ApNizsl5NaUw6HSnEKg1drWPXZXY1Rq7Wkd5dT_w0g3O_lA85FwAvAfytGbt0i8b_df1OxKKtKM</recordid><startdate>20150901</startdate><enddate>20150901</enddate><creator>Boezeman, Edwin J.</creator><creator>Sluiter, Judith K.</creator><creator>Nieuwenhuijsen, Karen</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7U2</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150901</creationdate><title>Measuring Work Functioning: Validity of a Weighted Composite Work Functioning Approach</title><author>Boezeman, Edwin J. ; Sluiter, Judith K. ; Nieuwenhuijsen, Karen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c608t-2fd22294a3bcd9d7367184e09a8ec42fb1f80c6993da1b6849bffd0036418d203</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Clinical Psychology</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Employees</topic><topic>Employers</topic><topic>Environmental Health</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health Psychology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Occupational health</topic><topic>Occupational Medicine/Industrial Medicine</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Participation</topic><topic>Physiology</topic><topic>Productivity</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Supervisors</topic><topic>Unemployment</topic><topic>Validation studies</topic><topic>Validity</topic><topic>Work - standards</topic><topic>Work Capacity Evaluation</topic><topic>Work measurement</topic><topic>Workers</topic><topic>Workloads</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Boezeman, Edwin J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sluiter, Judith K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nieuwenhuijsen, Karen</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><jtitle>Journal of occupational rehabilitation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Boezeman, Edwin J.</au><au>Sluiter, Judith K.</au><au>Nieuwenhuijsen, Karen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Measuring Work Functioning: Validity of a Weighted Composite Work Functioning Approach</atitle><jtitle>Journal of occupational rehabilitation</jtitle><stitle>J Occup Rehabil</stitle><addtitle>J Occup Rehabil</addtitle><date>2015-09-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>537</spage><epage>542</epage><pages>537-542</pages><issn>1053-0487</issn><eissn>1573-3688</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To examine the construct validity of a weighted composite work functioning measurement approach.
Methods
Workers (health-impaired/healthy) (n = 117) completed a composite measure survey that recorded four central work functioning aspects with existing scales: capacity to work, quality of work performance, quantity of work, and recovery from work. Previous derived weights reflecting the relative importance of these aspects of work functioning were used to calculate the composite weighted work functioning score of the workers. Work role functioning, productivity, and quality of life were used for validation. Correlations were calculated and norms applied to examine convergent and divergent construct validity. A
t
test was conducted and a norm applied to examine discriminative construct validity.
Results
Overall the weighted composite work functioning measure demonstrated construct validity. As predicted, the weighted composite score correlated (
p
< .001) strongly (
r
> .60) with work role functioning and productivity (
convergent construct validity
), and moderately (.30 <
r
< .60) with physical quality of life and less strongly than work role functioning and productivity with mental quality of life (
divergent validity
). Further, the weighted composite measure detected that health-impaired workers show with a large effect size (Cohen’s d > .80) significantly worse work functioning than healthy workers (
discriminative validity
).
Conclusion
The weighted composite work functioning measurement approach takes into account the relative importance of the different work functioning aspects and demonstrated good convergent, fair divergent, and good discriminative construct validity.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>25564439</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10926-014-9560-3</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1053-0487 |
| ispartof | Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2015-09, Vol.25 (3), p.537-542 |
| issn | 1053-0487 1573-3688 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1717499857 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Adult Clinical Psychology Efficiency Employees Employers Environmental Health Female Health Psychology Humans Male Medical research Medicine Medicine & Public Health Occupational health Occupational Medicine/Industrial Medicine Orthopedics Participation Physiology Productivity Quality of Life Questionnaires Regression analysis Rehabilitation Reproducibility of Results Studies Supervisors Unemployment Validation studies Validity Work - standards Work Capacity Evaluation Work measurement Workers Workloads |
| title | Measuring Work Functioning: Validity of a Weighted Composite Work Functioning Approach |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T08%3A35%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Measuring%20Work%20Functioning:%20Validity%20of%20a%20Weighted%20Composite%20Work%20Functioning%20Approach&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20occupational%20rehabilitation&rft.au=Boezeman,%20Edwin%20J.&rft.date=2015-09-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=537&rft.epage=542&rft.pages=537-542&rft.issn=1053-0487&rft.eissn=1573-3688&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10926-014-9560-3&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA714971976%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1704936613&rft_id=info:pmid/25564439&rft_galeid=A714971976&rfr_iscdi=true |