Skip to main content

Practical Aspects of Functional Capacity Evaluations

Abstract

Physicians, employers, insurers, and benefits adjudicators often rely upon functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) to determine musculoskeletal capacity to perform physical work, often with legal or occupational consequences. Despite their widespread application for several decades, a number of scientific, legal, and practical concerns persist. FCEs are based upon a theoretical model of comparing job demands to worker capabilities. Validity of FCE results is optimal with accurate job simulation and detailed, intensive assessments of specific work activities. When test criteria are unrelated to job performance, or subjective evaluation criteria are employed, the validity of results is questionable. Reliability within a subject over time may be adequate to support the use of serial FCE data collection to measure progress in worker rehabilitation. Evaluation of sincerity of effort, ability to perform complex or variable jobs, and prediction of injury based upon FCE data is problematic. More research, especially studies linking FCE results to occupational outcomes, is needed to better define the appropriate role for these evaluations in clinical and administrative settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

REFERENCES

  1. National Council on Compensation Insurance. Countrywide workers' compensation experience including certain competitive state funds, first report basis. Boca Raton, FL: NCCI, 1982.

  2. Simpson, SJ, Richlin, D. The role of functional capacity evaluations in occupational health settings. AAOHN J 2003; 51(5): 202-203.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hoffman, S, Pransky, G. Pre-placement evaluations and the Americans with Disabilities Act: An analysis. J Occup Rehabil 1998; 8: 255-263.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bigos, SJ, Battie, MC, Fisher, LD, Hansson, TH, Spengler, DM, Nachemson, AL. A prospective evaluation of preemployment screening methods for acute industrial back pain. Spine 1992; 17(8): 922-926.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chaffin, DB, Herrin, GD, Keyserling, WM. Preemployment strength testing: An updated position. J Occup Med 1978; 20(6): 403-408.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dempsey, P, Ciriello, V, Clancy, E, McGorry, R, Pransky, G, Webster, B. Quantitative assessment of upper extremity capacity and exposure. Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress, 2000, Santa Monica, P5/724-727.

  7. Sinclair, M, Drury, C. On mathematical modelling in ergonomics. Appl Ergon 1979; 10(4): 225-234.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Armstrong, TJ, Franzblau, A, Haig, A, Keyserling, WM, Levine, S, Streilein, K, Ulin, S, Werner, R. Developing ergonomic solutions for prevention of musculoskeletal disorder disability. Assist Technol 2001; 13(2): 78-87.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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(8): 759-767.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Christian, B. Return to work outcomes following accident compensation corporation work capacity assessment. N Z Med J 2002; 115(1153): 209-211.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ferguson, SA, Marras, WS, Gupta, P. Longitudinal quantitative measures of the natural course of low back pain recovery. Spine 2000; 25(15): 1950-1956.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dempsey, PG, Ayoub, MM, Westfall, PH. Evaluation of the ability of power to predict low frequency lifting capacity. Ergonomics 1998; 41(8): 1222-1241.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  15. Abdel-Moty, E, Fishbain, DA, Khalil, TM, Sadek, S, Cutler, R, Rosomoff, RS, Rosomoff, HL. Functional capacity and residual functional capacity and their utility in measuring work capacity. Clin J Pain 1993; 9(3): 168-173.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Peterson, N, Mumford, M, Borman, W, Jeanneret, P, Fleishman, E, Levin, K, Campion, M, Mayfield, M, Morgenson, F, Pearlman, K, Gowing, M, Lancaster, A, Silver, M, Dye, D. Understanding work using the occupational information network (O∈NET). Pers Psychol 2001; 54(2): 451-492.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Innes, E, Straker, L. Workplace assessments and functional capacity evaluations: Current practices of therapists in Australia. Work 2002; 18(1): 51-66.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chan, G, Tan, V, Koh, D. Ageing and fitness to work. Occup Med (Lond) 2000; 50(7): 483-491.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lindstrom, I, Ohlund, C, Nachemson, A. Validity of patient reporting and predictive value of industrial physical work demands. Spine 1994; 19(8): 888-893.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jones, T, Kumar, S. Functional capacity evaluation of manual materials handlers: A review. Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25(4–5): 179-191.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bilzon, JL, Allsopp, AJ, Tipton, MJ. Assessment of physical fitness for occupations encompassing load-carriage tasks. Occup Med (Lond) 2001; 51(5): 357-361.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Svensson, T, Karlsson, A, Alexanderson, K, Nordqvist, C. Shame-inducing encounters. Negative emotional aspects of sickness-absentees' interactions with rehabilitation professionals. J Occup Rehabil 2003; 13(3): 183-195.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Colella, A, DeNisi, AS, Varma, A. The impact of ratee's disability on performance judgments and choice as partner: The role of disability-job fit stereotypes and interdependence of rewards. J Appl Psychol 1998; 83(1): 102-111.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Isernhagen, S. Functional capacity evaluation: Rationale, procedure, utility of the kinesiophysical approach. J Occup Rehabil 1992; 2(3): 157-168.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Smith, RL. Therapists' ability to identify safe maximum lifting in low back pain patients during functional capacity evaluation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1994; 19(5): 277-281.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ting, W, Wessel, J, Brintnell, S, Maikala, R, Bhambhani, Y. Validity of the Baltimore therapeutic equipment work simulator in the measurement of lifting endurance in healthy men. Am J Occup Ther 2001; 55(2): 184-190.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mazanec, DJ. The injured worker: Assessing “return-to-work” status. Cleve Clin J Med 1996; 63(3): 166-171.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Schonstein, E, Kenny, DT. The value of functional and work place assessments in achieving a timely return to work for workers with back pain. Work 2001; 16(1): 31-38.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  30. Curtis, L, Mayer, TG, Gatchel, RJ. Physical progress and residual impairment quantification after functional restoration. Part III: Isokinetic and isoinertial lifting capacity. Spine 1994; 19(4): 401-405.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hazard, RG, Fenwick, JW, Kalisch, SM, Redmond, J, Reeves, V, Reid, S, Frymoyer, JW. Functional restoration with behavioral support. A one-year prospective study of patients with chronic low-back pain. Spine 1989; 14(2): 157-161.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rainville, J, Ahern, DK, Phalen, L, Childs, LA, Sutherland, R. The association of pain with physical activities in chronic low back pain. Spine 1992; 17(9): 1060-1064.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Boadella, JM, Sluiter, JK, Frings-Dresen, MH. Reliability of upper extremity tests measured by the Ergos work simulator: A pilot study. J Occup Rehabil 2003; 13(4): 219-232.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Innes, E, Straker, L. A clinicians' guide to work-related assessments: 3—Administration and interpretation problems. Work 1998; 11(2): 207-219.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Newton, M, Waddell, G. Trunk strength testing with iso-machines. Part 1: Review of a decade of scientific evidence. Spine 1993; 18(7): 801-811.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Isernhagen, SJ, Hart, DL, Matheson, LM. Reliability of independent observer judgments of level of lift effort in a kinesiophysical functional capacity evaluation. Work 1999; 12(2): 145-150.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rainville, J, Sobel, J, Hartigan, C, Monlux, G, Bean, J. Decreasing disability in chronic back pain through aggressive spine rehabilitation. J Rehabil Res Dev 1997; 34(4): 383-393.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hazard, RG, Reid, S, Fenwick, J, Reeves, V. Isokinetic trunk and lifting strength measurements: Variability as an indicator of effort. Spine 1988; 13(1): 54-57.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 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(11): 1405-1412.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Robinson, M, Geisser, M, Hanson, C, O'Conner, P. Detecting submaximal efforts in grip strength testing with the coefficient of variation. J Occup Rehabil 1993; 3: 45-50.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lechner, DE, Bradbury, SF, Bradley, LA. Detecting sincerity of effort: A summary of methods and approaches. Phys Ther 1998; 78(8): 867-888.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Innes, E, Tuckwell, N, Straker, L, Barrett, T. Test–retest reliability on nine tasks of the Physical Work Performance Evaluation. Work 2002; 19(3): 243-253.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hirsch, G, Beach, G, Cooke, C, Menard, M, Locke, S. Relationship between performance on lumbar dynamometry and Waddell score in a population with low-back pain. Spine 1991; 16(9): 1039-1043.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Grabiner, M, Jeziorowski, J, Divekar, A. Isokinetic measurements of trunk extension and flexion performance collected with the Biodex Clinical Data Station. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1990; 11: 590-598.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Croft, PR, MacFarlane, GJ, Papageorgiou, AC, Thomas, E, Silman, AJ. Outcome of low back pain in general practice: A prospective study. BMJ 1998; 316(7141): 1356-1359.

    Google Scholar 

  46. van den Hoogen, HJ, Koes, BW, van Eijk, JT, Bouter, LM, Deville, W. On the course of low back pain in general practice: A one year follow up study. Ann Rheum Dis 1998; 57(1): 13-19.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Waddell, G, McCulloch, JA, Kummel, E, Venner, RM. Nonorganic physical signs in low-back pain. Spine 1980; 5(2): 117-125.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Reneman, MF, Jorritsma, W, Dijkstra, SJ, Dijkstra, PU. Relationship between kinesiophobia and performance in a functional capacity evaluation. J Occup Rehabil 2003; 13(4): 277-285.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Beimborn, DS, Morrissey, MC. A review of the literature related to trunk muscle performance. Spine 1988; 13(6): 655-660.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cooke, C, Menard, MR, Beach, GN, Locke, SR, Hirsch, GH. Serial lumbar dynamometry in low back pain. Spine 1992; 17(6): 653-662.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  52. 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(2): 119-132.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Spieler, EA, Barth, PS, Burton, JF, Jr, Himmelstein, J, Rudolph, L. Recommendations to guide revision of the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. American Medical Association. JAMA 2000; 283(4): 519-523.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Menard, MR, Cooke, C, Locke, SR, Beach, GN, Butler, TB. Pattern of performance in workers with low back pain during a comprehensive motor performance evaluation. Spine 1994; 19(12): 1359-1366.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Reisine, S, McQuillan, J, Fifield, J. Predictors of work disability in rheumatoid arthritis patients. A five-year followup. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38(11): 1630-1637.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Loisel, P, Poitras, S, Lemaire, J, Durand, P, Southiere, A, Abenhaim, L. Is work status of low back pain patients best described by an automated device or by a questionnaire? Spine 1998; 23(14): 1588-1594.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Cohen, JE, Goel, V, Frank, JW, Gibson, ES. Predicting risk of back injuries, work absenteeism, and chronic disability. The shortcomings of preplacement screening. J Occup Med 1994; 36(10): 1093-1099.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Dempsey, P. How to choose a strength-testing program. Ergonomics in Design, April 1999, pp. 18-23.

  59. 42 United States Code § 19102(2)(C).

  60. Hansson, TH, Bigos, SJ, Wortley, MK, Spengler, DM. The load on the lumbar spine during isometric strength testing. Spine 1984; 9(7): 720-724.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Strege, DW, Cooney, WP, Wood, MB, Johnson, SJ, Metcalf, BJ. Chronic peripheral nerve pain treated with direct electrical nerve stimulation. J Hand Surg [Am] 1994; 19(6): 931-939.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Frings-Dresen, MH, Sluiter, JK. Development of a job-specific FCE protocol: The work demands of hospital nurses as an example. J Occup Rehabil 2003; 13(4): 233-248.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Reneman, MF, Dijkstra, PU. Introduction to the special issue on functional capacity evaluations: From expert based to evidence based. J Occup Rehabil 2003; 13(4): 203-206.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Glenn S. Pransky.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pransky, G.S., Dempsey, P.G. Practical Aspects of Functional Capacity Evaluations. J Occup Rehabil 14, 217–229 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOOR.0000022763.61656.b1

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOOR.0000022763.61656.b1

  • disability evaluation
  • work capacity evaluation
  • physical fitness
  • work physiology