Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Validity of the Multidimensional Task Ability Profile

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

Abstract

Background The Multidimensional Task Ability Profile (MTAP) is a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure that provides a global score linked to the physical demand characteristics of work, but needs to be validated against established measures. Purpose To assess the concurrent validity of the MTAP compared with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), and Short Form 12 Health-Related Quality of Life (SF-12) questionnaires. Methods An observational study was conducted in 157 patients undergoing musculoskeletal rehabilitation. At baseline and after 30 days of treatment, patients completed the MTAP, ODI, NDI, DASH, LEFS, and SF-12 and provided self-reported work status. Results At baseline and after 30 days, convergent validity between the MTAP and DASH, LEFS, NDI, and ODI was good to excellent. Concurrent validity between the MTAP and SF-12 physical component score (PCS) and mental component score (MCS) was moderate or fair, respectively. Sensitivity to change over the 30-day treatment interval was established for the MTAP, SF-12 PCS, SF-12 MCS, and LEFS. Fair to moderate predictive validity for work status was found for the MTAP, ODI, NDI, DASH, and SF-12 PCS. Conclusions The MTAP demonstrated adequate concurrent validity, predictive validity, and sensitivity to change compared to other PROs. For patients with various impairment types, the MTAP may be a useful omnibus measure to supplement specialty instruments such as the DASH, NDI, ODI, or LEFS.

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. Rose M, et al. Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(1):17–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Matheson LN, Kaskutas VK, Mada D. Development and construct validation of the Hand Function Sort. J Occup Rehabil. 2001;11(2):75–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mayer J, et al. The reliability and validity of a new computerized pictorial activity and task sort. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(2):185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kramer A, Holthaus D. Uniform patient assessment for post-acute care. Final report. Aurora, CO: Division of Health Care Policy and Research, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center; 2006.

  5. American Medical Association. Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. 6th ed. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2008. p. 613.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Khorsan R, et al. Measures in chiropractic research: choosing patient-based outcome assessments. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31(5):355–375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Author. Official disability guidelines. Austin, TX: MCG Health; 2019.

  8. Cella D, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1179–1194.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Medicare Program; Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and Alternative Payment Model (APM) incentive under the physician fee schedule, and criteria for physician-focused payment models. Final rule with comment period. Fed Reg. 2016;81(214):77008–77831.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Quality ID #182 (NQF 2624): Functional Outcome Assessment 2019. https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/ClinicalQualityMeasures.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.

  11. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2000;25(22):2940–2952.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991;14(7):409–415.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):602–608.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Binkley JM, et al. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. Phys Therapy. 1999;79(4):371–383.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ware JJ, Kosinski M, Keller S. A 12-item Short-Form Health Survey, construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Matheson L. History, design characteristics, and uses of the pictorial activity and task sorts. J Occup Rehabil. 2004;14(3):175–195.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Matheson L, Matheson M, Grant J. Development of a measure of perceived functional ability. J Occup Rehabil. 1993;3(1):15–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Verna JL, et al. Development and reliability testing of Spanish language and English language versions of the multidimensional task ability profile. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(2):220–227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Matheson L, et al. A method to provide a more efficient and reliable measure of self-report physical work capacity for patients with spinal pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18(1):46–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mooney V, et al. Performance-integrated self-report measurement of physical ability. Spine J. 2010;10(1):433–440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Andrich D. Rasch models of measurement. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and the attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danmarks Paedagogiske Institute; 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  23. U.S. Department of Labor. Dictionary of Occupational Titles, vol. 1. 4th ed. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kemp B, Adams B. The older adult health and mood questionnaire: a measure of geriatric depressive disorder. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 1995;8(July):162–167.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Matheson L. Multidimensional Task Ability Profile professional manual. St. Charles, MO: EpicRehab LLC.; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bergbom S, et al. Relationship among pain catastrophizing, depressed mood, and outcomes across physical therapy treatments. Phys Therapy. 2011;91(5):754–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Moreno R, et al. Functional restoration for chronic low back pain: changes in depression, cognitive distortion, and disability. J Occup Rehabil. 1991;1(3):207–216.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG, Theodore BR. The pain disability questionnaire: relationship to one-year functional and psychosocial rehabilitation outcomes. J Occup Rehabil. 2006;16(1):72–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Adams H, et al. The relation between catastrophizing and occupational disability in individuals with major depression: concurrent and prospective associations. J Occup Rehabil. 2017;27(3):405–412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43(4):357–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain. 1986;27(1):117–126.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Luo X, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the short form 12-item survey (SF-12) in patients with back pain. Spine. 2003;28(15):1739–1745.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Portney L, Watkins M. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc; 2000. p. 742.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Baldwin ML, et al. Self-reported severity measures as predictors of return-to-work outcomes in occupational back pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(4):683–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Armijo-Olivo S, et al. Predictive value of the DASH tool for predicting return to work of injured workers with musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremity. Occup Environ Med. 2016;73(12):807–815.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Marchand GH, et al. Change in pain, disability and influence of fear-avoidance in a work-focused intervention on neck and back pain: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16(1):94–104.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. McGirt MJ, et al. Prediction model for outcome after low-back surgery: individualized likelihood of complication, hospital readmission, return to work, and 12-month improvement in functional disability. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;39(6):E13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wind H, et al. 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 

  39. Gopinath B, et al. Prognostic indicators of social outcomes in persons who sustained an injury in a road traffic crash. Injury. 2015;46(5):909–917.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tschernetzki-Neilson PJ, et al. Changing to an outcome-focused program improves return to work outcomes. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(3):473–486.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–2194.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the staff of Spine & Sport Inc. for assistance with coordination and data collection for this study. The authors also thank Dr. Bryan Kemp for assistance with the Older Adult Health Questionnaire and for serving as chair of the Foundation’s Institutional Review Board.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vert Mooney Research Foundation, San Diego, CA, USA

    Joe L. Verna, Leonard N. Matheson & John M. Mayer

  2. Spine & Sport, Inc, San Diego, CA, USA

    Joe L. Verna & Sharon Scherer

  3. Epic Neurorehabilitation & Psychological Services, Inc, Chico, CA, USA

    Leonard N. Matheson

  4. Excellcior, LLC, Tampa, FL, USA

    John M. Mayer

  5. Vert Mooney Research Foundation, 3760 Convoy Street, Suite 101, San Diego, CA, 92123, USA

    John M. Mayer

Authors
  1. Joe L. Verna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leonard N. Matheson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sharon Scherer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John M. Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John M. Mayer.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

This study was funded by the Vert Mooney Research Foundation, a 501c(3) charitable organization that developed and currently owns the Multidimensional Task Ability Profile. Leonard Matheson, John Mayer, and Joe Verna are board members of the Vert Mooney Research Foundation. Leonard Matheson and Joe Verna own the intellectual property for the MTAP and benefit financially from MTAP sales and subscriptions. John Mayer received financial compensation for contributing to this project.

Ethical Approval

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 [41].

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verna, J.L., Matheson, L.N., Scherer, S. et al. Validity of the Multidimensional Task Ability Profile. J Occup Rehabil 29, 822–831 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-019-09842-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-019-09842-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation