Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Updating the Evidence on Functional Capacity Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review

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

Abstract

Objectives To synthesize the evidence on the psychometrics functional capacity evaluation (FCE) methods. Methods A systematic literature search in nine databases. The resulting articles were screened based on predefined in- and exclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently performed this screening. Included studies were appraised based on their methodological quality. Results The search resulted in 20 eligible studies about nine different FCE methods. The Baltimore Therapeutic Equipment work simulator showed a moderate predictive validity. The Ergo-Kit (EK) showed moderate variability and high inter- and intra-rater reliability. Low discriminative abilities and high convergent validity were found for the EK. Concurrent validity of the EK and the ERGOS Work Simulator was low to moderate. Moderate to high test–retest, inter- and intra-reliability was found in the Isernhagen Work-Systems (IWS) FCE. The predictive validity of the IWS was low. The physical work performance evaluation (PWPE) showed moderate test–retest reliability and moderate to high inter-rater reliability. Low internal and external responsiveness were found for the PWPE, predictive validity was high. The predictive validity of the short-form FCE was also high but need to be further examined on several psychometric properties. Low discriminative and convergent validity were found for the work disability functional assessment battery. The WorkHab showed moderate to high test–retest, inter- and intra-rater reliability. Conclusion Well-known FCE methods have been rigorously studied, but some of the research indicates weaknesses in their reliability and validity. Future research should address how these weaknesses can be overcome.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. OECD. Sickness, disability and work: breaking the barriers. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  2. Andrén D. Work, sickness, earnings, and early exits from the labor market. An empirical analysis using Swedish longitudinal data. Göteborg: Göteborg University; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hakim C. The social consequences of high unemployment. J Soc Policy. 1982;11(4):433–467.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dooley D, Fielding J, Levi L. Health and unemployment. Annu Rev Public Health. 1996;17(1):449–465.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Takala J, Hamalainen P, Saarela KL, Yun LY, Manickam K, Jin TW, et al. Global estimates of the burden of injury and illness at work in 2012. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2014;11(5):326–337.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Gouttebarge V, Wind H, Kuijer PP, Frings-Dresen MH. Reliability and validity of Functional capacity evaluation methods: a systematic review with reference to Blankenship system, Ergos work simulator, Ergo-Kit and Isernhagen work system. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2004;77(8):527–537.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Innes E. Reliability and Validity of Functional Capacity Evaluations: An Update. Int J Disabil Manag. 2012;1(1):135–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Soer R, van der Schans CP, Groothoff JW, Geertzen JH, Reneman MF. Towards consensus in operational definitions in functional capacity evaluation: a Delphi survey. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18(4):389–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gross DP, Battié MC. Functional capacity evaluation performance does not predict sustained return to work in claimants with chronic back pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(3):285–294.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Haglund L, Karlsson G, Kielhofner G, Lai JS. Validity of the Swedish version of the worker role interview. Scand J Occup Ther. 1997;4(1–4):23–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen J. Functional capacity evaluation & disability. Iowa Orthop J. 2007;27(1):121–127.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. King PM, Tuckwell N, Barrett TE. A critical review of functional capacity evaluations. Phys Ther. 1998;78(8):852–866.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cheng AS, Cheng SW. The predictive validity of job-specific functional capacity evaluation on the employment status of patients with nonspecific low back pain. J Occup Environ Med. 2010;52(7):719–724.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cheng AS, Cheng SW. Use of job-specific functional capacity evaluation to predict the return to work of patients with a distal radius fracture. Am J Occup Ther. 2011;65(4):445–452.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gouttebarge V, Wind H, Kuijer PP, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH. Intra- and interrater reliability of the Ergo-Kit functional capacity evaluation method in adults without musculoskeletal complaints. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(12):2354–2360.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gouttebarge V, Wind H, Kuijer PP, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH. Reliability and agreement of 5 Ergo-Kit functional capacity evaluation lifting tests in subjects with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(10):1365–1370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gouttebarge V, Wind H, Kuijer PP, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH. Construct validity of functional capacity evaluation lifting tests in construction workers on sick leave as a result of musculoskeletal disorders. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(2):302–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rustenburg G, Kuijer PP, Frings-Dresen MH. The concurrent validity of the ERGOS Work Simulator and the Ergo-Kit with respect to maximum lifting capacity. J Occup Rehabil. 2004;14(2):107–118.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Brubaker PN, Fearon FJ, Smith SM, McKibben RJ, Alday J, Andrews SS, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of the blankenship FCE system’s indicators of submaximal effort. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(4):161–168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Reneman MF, Brouwer S, Meinema A, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JH, Groothoff JW. Test-retest reliability of the Isernhagen work systems functional capacity evaluation in healthy adults. J Occup Rehabil. 2004;14(4):295–305.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Reneman MF, Fokkens AS, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JH, Groothoff JW. Testing lifting capacity: validity of determining effort level by means of observation. Spine. 2005;30(2):E40–E46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Trippolini MA, Dijkstra PU, Cote P, Scholz-Odermatt SM, Geertzen JH, Reneman MF. Can functional capacity tests predict future work capacity in patients with whiplash-associated disorders? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(12):2357–2366.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Numally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Brassard B, Durand MJ, Loisel P, Lemaire J. Étude de fidélité test-retest de L’Évaluation des Capacités Physiques reliées au Travail. Can J Occup Ther. 2006;73(4):206–214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Durand MJ, Loisel P, Poitras S, Mercier R, Stock SR, Lemaire J. The interrater reliability of a functional capacity evaluation: the physical work performance evaluation. J Occup Rehabil. 2004;14(2):119–129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lechner DE, Page JJ, Sheffield G. Predictive validity of a functional capacity evaluation: the physical work performance evaluation. Work. 2008;31(1):21–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Durand MJ, Brassard B, Hong QN, Lemaire J, Loisel P. Responsiveness of the physical work performance evaluation, a functional capacity evaluation, in patients with low back pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18(1):58–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Branton EN, Arnold KM, Appelt SR, Hodges MM, Battie MC, Gross DP. A short-form functional capacity evaluation predicts time to recovery but not sustained return-to-work. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(3):387–393.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Meterko M, Marfeo EE, McDonough CM, Jette AM, Ni P, Bogusz K, et al. Work disability functional assessment battery: feasibility and psychometric properties. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(6):1028–1035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. James C, Mackenzie L, Capra M. Test-retest reliability of the manual handling component of the WorkHab functional capacity evaluation in healthy adults. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(22):1863–1869.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. James C, Mackenzie L, Capra M. Inter- and intra-rater reliability of the manual handling component of the WorkHab functional capacity evaluation. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(19–20):1797–1804.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gross DP, Battie MC. Does functional capacity evaluation predict recovery in workers’ compensation claimants with upper extremity disorders? Occup Environ Med. 2006;63(6):404–410.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Gibson LA, Dang M, Strong J, Khan A. Test-retest reliability of the GAPP functional capacity evaluation in healthy adults. Can J Occup Ther. 2010;77(1):38–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Innes E, Straker L. Validity of work-related assessments. Work. 1999;13(2):125–152.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Innes E, Straker L. Reliability of work-related assessments. Work. 1999;13(2):107–124.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wind H, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PFM, Frings-Dresen MHW. Assessment of functional capacity of the musculoskeletal system in the context of work, daily living, and sport: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(2):253–272.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hart DL, Isernhagen SJ, Matheson LN. Guidelines for functional capacity evaluation of people with medical conditions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1993;18(6):682–686.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Gross DP, Battie MC, Asante AK. Evaluation of a short-form functional capacity evaluation: less may be best. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(3):422–435.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Wind H, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PPFM, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH. Het nut van Functionele Capaciteit Evaluatie: de visie van experts. TBV – Tijdschrift voor Bedrijfs- en Verzekeringsgeneeskunde. 2005;13(10):359–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mahmud N, Schonstein E, Schaafsma F, Lehtola MM, Fassier JB, Verbeek JH, Reneman MF. Functional capacity evaluations for the prevention of occupational re-injuries in injured workers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(7):CD007290. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007290.pub2.

  42. Kuijer PP, Gouttebarge V, Brouwer S, Reneman MF, Frings-Dresen MH. Are performance-based measures predictive of work participation in patients with musculoskeletal disorders? A systematic review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2012;85(2):109–123.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. WHO. International classification of functioning, disability, and health: ICF. Version 1.0. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Escorpizo R, Finger ME, Reneman MF. Integration and application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in return to work. In: Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ, editors. Handbook of return to work. Boston: Springer; 2016. p. 99–118.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Pas LW, Kuijer PPFM, Wind H, Sluiter JK, Groothoff JW, Brouwer S, et al. Clients’ and RTW experts’ view on the utility of FCE for the assessment of physical work ability, prognosis for work participation and advice on return to work. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2014;87(3):331–338.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research team wants to thank Professor Ev Innes, Professor Haije Wind, Professor Michiel Reneman, Mr Dirk Vandamme and Ms Linda Gabriël for their feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Occupational Therapy Program, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Stijn De Baets, Noortje Schalley, Marieke Coussens & Dominique Van de Velde

  2. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Patrick Calders & Guy Vanderstraeten

  3. Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium

    Katrien Vermeulen, Sofie Vertriest, Lien Van Peteghem & Guy Vanderstraeten

  4. Centre for Medical Genetics, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium

    Fransiska Malfait

  5. Department of Special Needs Education, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Geert Van Hove

Authors
  1. Stijn De Baets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick Calders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Noortje Schalley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katrien Vermeulen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sofie Vertriest
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lien Van Peteghem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marieke Coussens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Fransiska Malfait
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Guy Vanderstraeten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Geert Van Hove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Dominique Van de Velde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stijn De Baets.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Stijn De Baets, Patrick Calders, Noortje Schalley, Katrien Vermeulen, Sofie Vertriest, Lien Van Peteghem, Marieke Coussens, Fransiska Malfait, Guy Vanderstraeten, Geert Van Hove, and Dominique Van de Velde declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Baets, S., Calders, P., Schalley, N. et al. Updating the Evidence on Functional Capacity Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review. J Occup Rehabil 28, 418–428 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9734-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9734-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation