OBJECTIVES: To assess responsiveness to change and construct validity of the English Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire for Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease (WPAI-GERD). METHODS: The WPAI-GERD was used in a clinical study in Canadian GERD patients with moderate or severe symptoms treated with esomeprazole 40 mg once daily for 4 weeks. Productivity variables obtained included GERD-specific absence from work, reduced productivity while at work, and reduced productivity while carrying out regular daily activities other than work during the preceding week. RESULTS: The analysis included 217 patients, of whom 71% (n = 153) were employed. Before start of treatment, employed patients reported an average of 0.9 hours absence from work and 14.0% reduced work productivity (= 5.8 hours equivalent; % reduced productivity x hours actually worked), as well as 21.0% reduced productivity in daily activities (all patients). After treatment, the corresponding figures decreased to 0.3 hours, 3.0% (= 1.1 hours equivalent) and 4.9%, respectively. Thus, the improvement (difference from start of treatment) in productivity was 0.6 hours (p = 0.01) for absence from work, 11.0% units (p <0.001) for reduced work productivity (= 4.7 hours equivalent, p <0.001) and 16.1% units (p <0.001) for reduced productivity in activities. This improvement translates into an avoided loss of work productivity of 5.3 hours in total on a weekly basis per patient employed. Cross-sectional correlation coefficients between WPAI variables and symptoms (range: 0.04 - 0.63), as well as health-related quality of life (range: 0.02-0.65) supported cross-sectional construct validity of the English WPAI-GERD. Corresponding change score correlations between WPAI variables and relevant symptoms were low (range: 0.10-0.23), which would indicate poor longitudinal construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-sectional construct validity of the English WPAI-GERD version was confirmed and results indicated that the WPAI-GERD is responsive to change. Although these results also indicated poor longitudinal construct validity, the overall findings suggest that further study of the instrument remains warranted.