Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Rehabil. Sci.

Sec. Interventions for Rehabilitation

Volume 6 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fresc.2025.1690892

This article is part of the Research TopicPost-Acute COVID RehabilitationView all 14 articles

Construct validity of self-reported and interview-guided administration methods of the Danish version of the Post-COVID-19 Functional Status scale

Provisionally accepted
Lotte  SørensenLotte Sørensen1*Jane  AgergaardJane Agergaard2Trine  Brøns NielsenTrine Brøns Nielsen3Berit  Schiøttz-ChristensenBerit Schiøttz-Christensen2Cecilia  Hee LaursenCecilia Hee Laursen4Steffen  LethSteffen Leth5Claus  Vinther NielsenClaus Vinther Nielsen4Lisa  Gregersen OestergaardLisa Gregersen Oestergaard3
  • 1Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
  • 2Aarhus Universitetshospital Afdeling for Infektionssygdomme, Aarhus, Denmark
  • 3DEFACTUM, Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark
  • 4Department of Social Medicine and Rehabilitation, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark
  • 5Department of Internal Medicine and Rehabilitation, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Introduction The Post-COVID-19 Functional Status (PCFS) scale was quickly adopted into COVID-19 research and clinical practice worldwide to monitor functional status and recovery. The scale has been translated into Danish, and three different administration methods have been employed. However, clinicians have expressed concerns about the scale's ability to capture work-related functional limitations. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the construct validity of three different administration methods of the Danish version of the PCFS scale. Methods This cross-sectional study included patients with long COVID who completed three versions of the PCFS scale: a questionnaire-based version, a flowchart-based version, and an interview-based version. The construct validity was evaluated following the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines by testing predefined hypotheses that compared the PCFS scale with sick leave and EuroQoL Five-dimensions Five level (EQ-5D-5L). Results A total of 437 patients, with a mean age 48 years, 75% female, and 59% on sick leave, were included in this study. Statistically significant differences between the three administration methods were found. Of the 234 patients on sick leave, only 50-54% had a PCFS grade ≥3 which was below our predefined hypothesis. Furthermore, correlations between the PCFS scale and EQ-5D-5L was lower than hypothesized. Conclusion None of the three administration methods effectively captured work-related functional limitations associated with being on part-time or full-time sick leave. Additionally, correlations with quality of life were lower than expected. Overall, the construct validity of the PCFS scale was only partially supported.

Keywords: construct validity, Functional limitations, Long-covid, Post-COVID-19 Functional Status scale, Quality of Life, Sick Leave

Received: 22 Aug 2025; Accepted: 23 Oct 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Sørensen, Agergaard, Nielsen, Schiøttz-Christensen, Laursen, Leth, Nielsen and Oestergaard. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Lotte Sørensen, lotsoere@rm.dk

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.