Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measurement Properties of Performance-Based Assessment of Functional Capacity

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Performance-based functional assessments, including standardized functional capacity evaluation (FCE) batteries, are commonly used to determine the physical work abilities of individuals who have sustained musculoskeletal injury. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine research pertaining to the measurement properties of performance-based FCE, along with the theoretical bases for such measurement. While rater judgments of maximum performance during FCE appear reliable, FCEs do not appear to be purely tests of physical capacity as performance during assessment is influenced by multiple personal and environmental contextual factors. FCEs are more accurately considered behavioural tests influenced by multiple factors including physical ability, beliefs, and perceptions, and should be interpreted with in the subject's broader personal and environmental context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. King, PM, Tuckwell, N, Barrett, TE. A critical review of functional capacity evaluations. Phys Ther 1998; 78: 852-866.

    Google Scholar 

  2. McGill, SM. The biomechanics of low back injury: Implications on current practice in industry and the clinic. J Biomech 1997; 30: 465-475.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hadler, NM. Back pain in the workplace. What you lift or how you lift matters far less than whether you lift or when. Spine 1997; 22: 935-940.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Frank, JW, Kerr, MS, Brooker, AS, DeMaio, SE, Maetzel, A, Shannon, HS, Sullivan, TJ, Norman, RW, Wells, RP. Disability resulting from occupational low back pain. Part I: What do we know about primary prevention? A review of the scientific evidence on prevention before disability begins. Spine 1996; 21: 2908-2917.

    Google Scholar 

  5. WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health final draft. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rudy, TE, Dieber, SJ, Boston, JR. Functional capacity assessment: Influence of behavioural and environmental factors. J Back Musculoskel Rehabil 1996; 6: 277-288.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hart, DL, Isernhagen, SJ, Matheson, LN. Guidelines for functional capacity evaluation of people with medical conditions. JOSPT 1993; 18: 682-686.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Matheson, LN, Mooney, V, Grant, JE, Affleck, M, Hall, H, Melles, T, Lichter, RL, McIntosh, G. A test to measure lift capacity of physically impaired adults. Part 1—Development and reliability testing. Spine 1995; 20: 2119-2129.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Finch, E, Brooks, D, Stratford, P, Mayo, N. Physical rehabilitation outcome measures: A guide to enhanced clinical decision making. Toronto: Canadian Physiotherapy Association, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Innes, E, Straker, L. Reliability of work-related assessments. Work 1999; 13: 107-124.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Innes, E, Straker, L. Validity of work-related assessments. Work 1999; 13: 125-152.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Velozo, CA. Work evaluations: Critique of the state of the art of functional assessment of work. Am J Occup Ther 1993; 47: 203-209.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lechner, DE, Jackson, JR, Roth, DL, Straaton, KV. Reliability and validity of a newly developed test of physical work performance. J Occup Med 1994; 36: 997-1004.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Brouwer, S, Reneman, MF, Dijkstra, PU, Groothoff, JW, Schellekens, JMH, Goeken, LNH. Test-retest reliability of the Isernhagen Work Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation in patients with chronic low back pain. J Occup Rehabil 2003; 13: 207-218.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gardener, L, McKenna, K. Reliability of occupational therapists in determining safe, maximal lifting capacity. Aust Occup Ther J 1999; 46: 110-119.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gross, DP, Battié, MC. Reliability of safe maximum lifting determinations of a functional capacity evaluation. Phys Ther 2002; 82: 364-371.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Reneman, MF, Dijkstra, PU, Westmaas, M, Goeken, LN. Test-retest reliability of lifting and carrying in a 2-day functional capacity evaluation. J Occup Rehabil 2002; 12: 269-275.

    Google Scholar 

  18. United States Employment and Training Administration. Dictionary of occupational titles. Indianapolis: United States Employment and Training Administration, 1991.

  19. Hart, DL. Relation between three measures of function in patients with chronic work-related pain syndromes. J Rehabil Outcome Meas 1998; 2: 1-14.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Reneman, MF, Jorritsma, W, Schellekens, JM, Goeken, LN. Concurrent validity of questionnaire and performance-based disability measurements in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. J Occup Rehabil 2002; 12: 119-129.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Reneman, MF, Jorritsma, W, Schellekens, JM, Goeken, LN. Concurrent validity of questionnaire and performance-based disability measurements in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. J Occup Rehabil 2002; 12: 119-129.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Domholdt, E. Physical therapy research: Principles and applications. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Andresen, EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81: S15-S20.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gross, DP, Battié, MC. The construct validity of a functional capacity evaluation administered within a workers' compensation environment. J Occup Rehabil 2003; 13: 287-295.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Isernhagen, SJ. Functional capacity evaluation: Rationale, procedure, utility of the kinesiophysical approach. J Occup Rehabil 1992; 2: 157-168.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lackner, JM, Carosella, AM. The relative influence of perceived pain control, anxiety, and functional self-efficacy on spinal function among patients with chronic low back pain. Spine 1999; 24: 2254-2260; discussion 2260–2261.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lackner, JM, Carosella, AM, Feuerstein, M. Pain expectancies, pain, and functional self-efficacy expectancies as determinants of disability in patients with chronic low back disorders. J Consult Clin Psychol 1996; 64: 212-220.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Dusik, LA, Menard, MR, Cooke, C, Fairburn, SM, Beach, GN. Concurrent validity of the ERGOS work simulator versus conventional functional capacity evaluation techniques in a workers' compensation population. J Occup Med 1993; 35: 759-767.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Estlander, AM, Vanharanta, H, Moneta, GB, Kaivanto, K. Anthropometric variables, self-efficacy beliefs, and pain and disability ratings on the isokinetic performance of low back pain patients. Spine 1994; 19: 941-947.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Marras, WS, Davis, KG, Heaney, CA, Maronitis, AB, Allread, WG. The influence of psychosocial stress, gender, and personality on mechanical loading of the lumbar spine. Spine 2000; 25: 3045-3054.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Davis, KG, Marras, WS, Heaney, CA, Waters, TR, Gupta, P. The impact of mental processing and pacing on spine loading: 2002 Volvo Award in biomechanics. Spine 2002; 27: 2645-2653.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Nag, PK, Bandyopadhyay, P, Ashtekar, SP, Kothari, D, Desai, H, Nag, A. Human work capacity under combined stress of work and heat. J Hum Ergo 1996; 25: 105-113.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Madeleine, P, Voigt, M, Arendt-Nielsen, L. Subjective, physiological and biomechanical responses to prolonged manual work performed standing on hard and soft surfaces. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1998; 77: 1-9.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Shechtman, O. The coefficient of variation as a measure of sincerity of effort of grip strength, Part II: Sensitivity and specificity. J Hand Ther 2001; 14: 188-194.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jay, MA, Lamb, JM, Watson, RL, Young,, IA, Fearon, FJ, Alday, JM, Tindall, AG. Sensitivity and specificity of the indicators of sincere effort of the EPIC lift capacity test on a previously injured population. Spine 2000; 25: 1405-1412.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Fishbain, DA, Abdel-Moty, E, Cutler, RB, Rosomoff, HL, Steele-Rosomoff, R. Detection of a “faked” strength task effort in volunteers using a computerized exercise testing system. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 78: 222-227.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Cooke, C, Dusik, LA, Menard, MR, Fairburn, SM, Beach, GN. Relationship of performance on the ERGOS work simulator to illness behavior in a workers' compensation population with low back versus limb injury. J Occup Med 1994; 36: 757-762.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Strong, S, Clarke, J, Cole, DC, Costa, M, Reardon, R, Shannon, HS, Sinclair, SJ. Assessment of a person's ability to function at work. Toronto, ON: McMaster University, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gibson, L, Strong, J. Assessment of psychosocial factors in functional capacity evaluation of clients with chronic back pain. Br J Occup Ther 1998; 61: 399-404.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ruan, CM, Haig, AJ, Geisser, ME, Yamakawa, K, Buchholz, RL. Functional capacity evaluations in persons with spinal disorders: Predicting poor outcomes on the Functional Assessment Screening Test (FAST). J Occup Rehabil 2001; 11: 119-132.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Matheson, LN, Isernhagen, SJ, Hart, DL. Relationships among lifting ability, grip force, and return to work. Phys Ther 2002; 82: 249-256.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Fishbain, DA, Cutler, RB, Rosomoff, H, Khalil, T, Abdel-Moty, E, Steele-Rosomoff, R. Validity of the dictionary of occupational titles residual functional capacity battery. Clin J Pain 1999; 15: 102-110.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Cutler, RB, Fishbain, DA, Steele-Rosomoff, R, Rosomoff, H. Relationships between functional capacity measures and baseline psychological measures in chronic pain patients. J Occup Rehabil 2003; 13: 249-258.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Gross, DP, Battié, MC, Cassidy, JD. The prognostic value of functional capacity evaluation in patients with chronic low back pain: Part 1. Timely return to work. Spine 2004.

  45. Gross, DP, Battié, MC. The prognostic value of functional capacity evaluation in patients with chronic low back pain: Part 2. Sustained recovery. Spine 2004.

  46. Crook, J, Milner, R, Schultz, IZ, Stringer, B. Determinants of occupational disability following a low back injury: A critical review of the literature. J Occup Rehabil 2002; 12: 277-295.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mayer, TG, Gatchel, RJ, Kishino, N, Keeley, J, Capra, P, Mayer, H, Barnett, J, Mooney, V. Objective assessment of spine function following industrial injury. A prospective study with comparison group and one-year follow-up. Spine 1985; 10: 482-493.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Matheson, LN, Mooney, V, Holmes, D, Leggett, S, Grant, JE, Negri, S, Holmes, B. A test to measure lift capacity of physically impaired adults. Part 2—Reactivity in a patient sample. Spine 1995; 20: 2130-2134.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Douglas P. Gross

Authors
  1. Douglas P. Gross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas P. Gross.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gross, D.P. Measurement Properties of Performance-Based Assessment of Functional Capacity. J Occup Rehabil 14, 165–174 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOOR.0000022759.30446.4f

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOOR.0000022759.30446.4f

Search

Navigation