The utility of Functional Capacity Evaluation: the opinion of physicians and other experts in the field of return to work and disability claims

  • Haije Wind
  • Vincent Gouttebarge
  • P. Paul F. M. Kuijer
  • Judith K. Sluiter
  • Monique H. W. Frings-Dresen
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives: This qualitative study explored how Dutch experts perceive the utility of functional capacity evaluation (FCE) for return to work (RTW) and disability claim (DC) assessment purposes. Methods: Twenty-one RTW case managers and 29 DC experts were interviewed by telephone using a semi-structured interview schedule. Results: The RTW case managers valued the utility of FCE on a scale of 0–10. Their mean valuation was 6.5 (SD 1.5). The average valuation for DC experts was 4.8 (SD 2.2). Arguments in favor of FCE were (1) its ability to confirm own opinions and (2) the objectivity of its measurement method. Arguments against FCE were (1) the redundancy of the information it provides and (2) the lack of objectivity. Indications for FCE were musculoskeletal disorders, a positive patient self-perception of ability to work, and the presence of an actual job. Contraindications for FCE were medically unexplained disorders, a negative patient self-perception of ability to work, and the existence of disputes and legal procedures. Conclusions: The responding RTW case managers perceived FCE to be more useful than the responding DC experts. The question of whether the arguments presented for and against the utility of FCE are valid is one that should be addressed in a future study.

Keywords

Functional capacity evaluation FCE Utility Return to work Disability claim 

References

  1. Aaron LA, Patterson DR, Finch CP, Carrougher GJ, Heimbach DM (2001) The utility of a burn specific measure of pain anxiety to prospectively predict pain and function: a comparative analysis. Burns 27:329–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdel-Moty E, Fishbain DA, Khalil TM, Sadek S, Cutler R, Rosomoff RS, Rosomoff HL (1993) Functional capacity and residual functional capacity and their utility in measuring work capacity. Clin J Pain 9:168–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alderson M, McGall D (1999) The Alderson–McGall hand function questionnaire for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome: a pilot evaluation of future outcome measure. J Hand Ther 12(4):313–322PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brouwer S, Reneman MF, Dijkstra PU, Groothoff JW, Schellekens JM, Goeken LN (2003) Test–retest reliability of the Isernhagen work sytems functional capacity evaluation in patients with chronic low back pain. J Occup Rehabil 12:207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deen M, Gibson L, Strong J (2002) A survey of occupational therapy in Australian work practice. Work 19:219–230PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Duruoz MT, Cerrahoglu L, Dincer-Turan Y, Kursat S (2003) Hand function assessment in patients receiving haemodialysis. Swiss Med Wkly 133(31–32):433–438PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Feise RJ, Menke JM (2001) Functional rating index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions including commentary by Cherkin D. Spine 26(1):78–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gouttebarge V, Wind H, Kuijer PPFM, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW (2005) Intra- and interrater reliability of the Ergo Kit® FCE methods in adults without musculoskeletal complaints. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86:2354–2360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gross DP, Battié, Cassidy JD (2004) The prognostic value of functional capacity evaluation in patients with chronic low back pain: part 1. Timely return to work. Spine 29:914–919, including comment by Oliveri M, Jansen T (2005) Spine 30:1232–1234Google Scholar
  10. Gross DP, Battié MC (2002) Reliability of safe maximum lifting determinations of a functional capacity evaluation. Phys Ther 82(4):364–371PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Harbin G, Olson J (2005) Post-offer, pre-placement testing in industry. Am J Ind Med 47:296–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harten JA (1998) Functional capacity evaluation. Occup Med State Art 13:209–212Google Scholar
  13. Innes E, Straker L (1999a) Reliability of work-related assessments. Work 13:107–124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Innes E, Straker L (1999b) Validity of work-related assessments. Work 13:125–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Innes E, Straker L (2002) Workplace assessments and functional capacity evaluations: current practices of therapists in Australia. Work 18:51–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Innes E, Straker L (2003) Attributes of excellence in work-related assessments. Work 20:63–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaiser H, Kersing M, Schian H-M, Jacobs A, Kasprowski D (2000) Der Stellenwert des EFL-Verfahrens nach Susan Isernhagen in der medizinischer und beruflichen Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation 39:297–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. King PM (1998) Sourcebook of occupational rehabilitation. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. King PM, Tuckwell N, Barrett TE (1998) A critical review of functional capacity evaluations. Phys Ther 78:852–866PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lechner D, Roth D, Straaton K (1991) Functional capacity evaluation in work disability. Work 1:37–47Google Scholar
  21. Matheson LN, Mooney V, Grant JE, Leggett S, Kenny K (1996) Standardized evaluation of work capacity. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 6:249–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moore AD, Clarke AE, Danoff DS, Joseph L, Belisle P, Neville C, Fortin PR (1999) Can health utility measures be used in lupus research? A comparative validation and reliability study of 4 utility indices. J Rheumatol 26(6):1285–1290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Opasich C, Pinna GD, Mazza A, Febo O, Riccardi R, Riccardi PG, Capomolla S, Forni G, Cobelli F, Tavazzi L (2001) Six-minute walking in performance in patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure: is it a useful indicator in clinical practice? Eur Heart J 22(6):488–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Portney LG, Watkins MP (2000) Part IV data analysis: correlation. In: Foundations of clinical research. Applications to practice, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall Health, Upper Saddle River, vol 23, pp 503Google Scholar
  25. Rudy TE, Lieber SJ, Boston JR (1996) Functional capacity assessments: influence of behavioral and environmental factors. J Back Musc Rehabil 6:277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Saunders RL, Beissner KL, McManis BG (1997) Estimates of weight that subjects can lift frequently in functional capacity evaluation. Phys Ther 77(12):1717–1728PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Simmonds MJ (2002) Physical function in patients with cancer: psychometric characteristics and clinical usefulness of a physical performance test battery. J Pain Symptom Manage 24(4):404–414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simonsen JC (1996) Validation of sincerity of effort. J Back Musc Rehabil 6:289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith RL (1994) Therapists’ ability to identify safe maximum lifting in low back patients during functional capacity evaluation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 18(5):277–281Google Scholar
  30. Strong S, Baptiste S, Clarke J, Cole D, Costa M (2004) Use of functional capacity evaluations in workplaces and the compensation system: a report on workers’ and report users’ perceptions. Work 23(1):67–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Strong S (2002) Functional capacity evaluation: the good, the bad and the ugly. Occup Ther; January/February, pp 5–9Google Scholar
  32. Telzrow CF, McNamara K (2001) New directions in assessment for students with disabilities. Work 17:105–116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Tuckwell NL, Straker L, Barrett TE (2002) Test–retest reliability on nine tasks of the physical work performance evaluation. Work 19:243–253PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Dijk FJH, De Kort WLAM, Verbeek JHAM (1993) Quality assessment of occupational health services instruments. Occup Med 43(suppl 1):S28–S33Google Scholar
  35. Vasudevan SV (1996) Role of functional capacity assessment in disability evaluation. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 6:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haije Wind
    • 1
  • Vincent Gouttebarge
    • 1
  • P. Paul F. M. Kuijer
    • 1
  • Judith K. Sluiter
    • 1
  • Monique H. W. Frings-Dresen
    • 1
  1. 1.Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Coronel Institute of Occupational HealthAmCOGG: Amsterdam Center for Research into Health and Health CareAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations