Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Measurement Qualities of a Self-Report and Therapist-Scored Functional Capacity Instrument Based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles

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

Studies provide convincing arguments to support the development of functional capacity instruments based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). The purpose of this study is to investigate the item-level measurement qualities of a newly developed DOT-based functional capacity instrument for clients undergoing rehabilitation treatment for back pain. Client and therapist ratings were collected on 124 clients from 27 rehabilitation sites using the newly developed Occupational Rehabilitation Data Base (ORDB) functional capacity instrument. Rasch analysis was used to investigate: (1) unidimensionality, (2) hierarchical item difficulty continuum, (3) rater severity, and 4) person–item match. Overall, the functional capacity scale of the ORDB showed good measurement qualities. All items, except the Handling item fit the Rasch measurement model. Because of high fit statistics and loading on factors independent from the remainder of the items, the “handling” item was removed, from further analyses. Separate client-rated and therapist-rated instruments retained good item-level psychometrics. While client and therapist items showed similar item-difficulty hierarchical structures, clients had a tendency to be more severe in their rating and the correlation between client and therapist ratings was relatively low, 0.32. These findings suggest that Handling items should not be included as a DOT measure for clients with back pain. While the above psychometric study supports using client or therapist ratings as independent instruments, the lack of concordance between these ratings requires further investigation.

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

Notes

  1. In order to compare item difficulties across the client and therapist rated analyses, each analysis was anchored at the average person ability measure of 0.

REFERENCES

  1. Abdel-Moty E, Fishbain DA, Khalil TM, Sadek S, Cutler R, Steel-Rosomoff R, Rosomoff HL. Functional capacity and residual functional capacity and their utility in measuring work capacity. Clin J Pain 1993; 9: 168–173.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gross DP. Measurement properties of performance-based assessment of functional capacity. J Occup Rehabil 2004; 14(3): 165–174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. King PM, Tuckwell N, Barett TE. A critical review of functional capacity evaluations. Phys Ther 1998; 8: 852–866.

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mayer TG. Chapter 7: Assessment of lumbar function. In Disability Symposium. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1987; 221: 99–109.

  6. Cutler RB, Fishbain DA, Steele-Rosomoff R, Rosomoff HL. Relationships between functional capacity measures and baseline psychological measures in chronic pain patients. Spine 2003; 1(4): 249–258.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Matheson LN, Isernhagen SJ, Hart DL. Relationships among lifting ability, grip force, and return to work. Phys Ther 2002; 82(3): 249–256.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mooney V. Functional capacity testing: its role in assessing and treating back pain. Pain Manage 1990; 3(2): 107–113.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Abdel-Moty E, Khalil T, Sadek S, Dilsen E, Fishbain DA, Steel-Rosomoff R, Rosomoff HL. Functional capacity assessment: A test battery and its use in rehabilitation. In: Mital A, ed. Advances in industrial ergonomics & safety I. New York: Taylor & Francis, 1992, pp. 1171–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fishbain DA, Abdel-Moty E, Cutler R, Khalil TM, Sadek S, Steel-Rosomoff R, Rosomoff HL. Measuring residual functional capacity in chronic low back pain patients based on the dictionary of occupational title. Spine 1994; 19(8): 872–880.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hadler NM. Disabling backache in France, Switzerland and the Netherlands: Contrasting sociopolitical constraints on clinical judgment. J Occup Med 1989; 31: 823–831.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fishbain DA, Cutler RB, Rosomoff HL, 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Manual for Valpor Component Work Sample 1, 9, 11. Tuscon, Arizona: L Valpar International Corporation, 1980.

  14. Kopec JA. Measuring functional outcomes in persons with back pain. Spine 2000; 25: 3110–3114.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dobel SE, Fisk JD, Fisher AG, Ritvo PG, Murray TJ. Functional competence of community-dwelling persons with multiple sclerosis using the assessment of motor and process skills. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75: 843–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Haley SM, Andres PL, Coster WJ, Kosinski M, Ni P, Jette AM. Short-form activity measure for post-acute care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85(4): 649–660.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Haley SM, McHorney CA, Ware JE, Jr. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 671– 684.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Haley SM, McHorney CA, Ware JE, Jr. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50(4): 451–461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Heinemann AW, Linacre JM, Wright BD, Hamilton BB, Granger C. Relationships between impairment and physical disability as measured by the functional independence measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74: 566–573.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. White L, Velozo CA. The use of Rasch measurement to improve the Oswestry classification scheme. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 822–831.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Silverstein B, Fisher WP, Kilgore KM, Harley JP, Harvey RF. Applying psychometric criteria to functional assessment in medical rehabilitation: II. Defining interval measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991; 73: 507–518.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Silverstein B, Kilgore KM, Fisher WP, Harley JP, Harvey RF. Applying psychometric criteria to functional assessment in medical rehabilitation: I. Exploring unidimensionality. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991; 72(9): 631–637.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Whiteneck GG, Charlifue SW, Gerhart KA, Overholser JD, Richardson GN. Quantifying handicap: A new measure of long-term rehabilitation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992; 73: 519–526.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item Response Theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 2000; 38(9, Suppl II): II-28–II-42.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Velozo CA, Peterson E. Using Rasch analysis to develop meaningful fear of falling measures for community dwelling elderly. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 80(9): 662–673.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. McHorney CA. Generic health measurement: Past accomplishments and a measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 743–750.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. McHorney CA, Haley SM, Ware JE, Jr. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical functioning scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1997:50(4): 451–461.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. McHorney CA. Health status assessment methods for adults: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Annu Rev Public Health 1999; 20: 309–335.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Weiss DJ. Adaptive testing by computer. J Consult Clin Psychol 1985; 3: 774–789.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Velozo CA Magalhaes L, Pan A, Leiter P. Differences in functional scale discrimination at admission and discharge: Rasch analysis of the Level of Rehabilitation Scale-III (LORS-III). Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995; 76(8): 705–712.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. McHorney CA, Haley SM, Ware JE, Jr. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47(6): 671–684.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Thurstone LL. Measurement of social attitudes. J Abnorm Soc Psycholol 1931; 26: 249–269.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wright BD, Linacre JM. Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989; 70: 857–860.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Merbitz C, Morris J, Grip JC. Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989; 70: 308–332.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Engelhard G. Monitoring raters in performance assessments. In: Tindal G, Haladyna T, eds. Large-scale assessment programs for ALL students: Development, implementation, and analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002, pp. 261–287.

  36. Fisher WP. Measurement-related problems in functional assessment. Am J Occup Ther 1993; 47(4): 331–337.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kielhofner G, Mallinson T, Forsyth K, Lai J. Psychometric properties of the second version of the occupational performance history interview (OPHI-II). Am J Occup Ther 2001; 55(3): 260–267.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tresi JA, Kleinman M, Ocepek-Welikson K. Modern psychometric methods for detection of differential item functioning: Application to cognitive assessment measures. Stat Med 2000; 19: 1651–1683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lunz ME, Stahl JA. The effect of rater severity on person ability measure: A Rasch model analysis. Am J Occup Ther 1993; 47(4): 311–317.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wilson M, Wang W. Complex composites: Issues that arise in combining different modes of assessment. In Special Issues: Polytomous item response theory. Appl Psychol Measure 1995; 19: 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Velozo CA, Santopoalo R. Training manual: Occupational rehabilitation data base manual. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  42. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Selected characteristics of occupationals defined in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  43. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 4th edn., Supplement. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Linacre JM. WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program. Chicago: Winsteps.com, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Wang WC, Chen CT. Item parameter recovery, standard error estimates, and fit statistics of the WINSTEPS Program for the family of Rasch models. Educ Psychol Measure 2005; 65: 376–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Avery LM, Russell DL, Raina PS, Walter SD, Rosenbaum PL. Rasch analysis of the Gross Motor Function Measure: Validating the assumptions of the Rasch model to create an interval-level measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84: 697–705.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Velozo CA, Peterson EW. Developing meaningful fear of falling measures for community dwelling elderly. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 80: 662–673.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Davidson M, Keating JL, Eyres S. A low back pain version of the SF-36 physical functioning Scale. Spine 2004; 29(5): 586–594.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Linacre JM. Detecting multidimensionality: Which residual data-type works best? J Outcome Meas 1998; 2: 266–283.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Smith EV. Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principle component analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas 2002; 3: 205–231.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Preacher KJ, MacCallum RC. Reparing Tom Swift's electric factor analysis machine. Understand Stat 2003; 2(1): 13–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. White LJ, Velozo CA. The use of Rasch measurement to improve the Oswestry classification scheme. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 822–831.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Mallinson T, Stelmack J, Velozo C. A comparison of the separation ratio and coefficient α in the creation of minimum item sets. Med Care 2004; 42(1, Suppl): I-17–I-24.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Norman GR, Steiner DL. Biostatistics: The bare essentials. St. Louise: Mosby Yearbook Inc., 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Magaziner J, Zimmerman SI, Gruber-Baldini AL, Hebel JR, Fox KM. Proxy reporting in five areas of functional status. Comparison with self-reports and observations of performance. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 146(5): 418–428.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Grootendorst PV, Feeny DH, Furlong W. Does it matter whom and how you ask? Inter- and intra-rater agreement in the Ontario Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50(2): 127–135.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rehabilitation Outcomes Research Center, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida, USA

    Craig A. Velozo

  2. Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

    Craig A. Velozo

  3. Rehabilitation Science Doctoral Program, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

    Bongsam Choi

  4. Student Support Services, Chehalis, Washington, USA

    Sheryl Eckberg Zylstra

  5. Global Halloween Alliance Corporation, Evanston, Illinois, USA

    Rochelle Santopoalo

  6. Correspondence should be directed to Craig Velozo, Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, P.O. Box 100164, Gainesville, Florida, 32610-0164, USA

    Craig A. Velozo

Authors
  1. Craig A. Velozo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bongsam Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sheryl Eckberg Zylstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rochelle Santopoalo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Craig A. Velozo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Velozo, C.A., Choi, B., Zylstra, S.E. et al. Measurement Qualities of a Self-Report and Therapist-Scored Functional Capacity Instrument Based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. J Occup Rehabil 16, 106–119 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-005-9014-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-005-9014-z

KEY WORDS:

Search

Navigation