Clinician-Reported Outcome Measures: Experiences from Multicenter Follow-Up and an Overview of Commonly Used Measures in Vocational Rehabilitation and Disability Evaluation

  • Ingemar F PeterssonEmail author
  • Birgitta Grahn
  • Kjerstin Stigmar
Part of the Handbooks in Health, Work, and Disability book series (SHHDW)


The ICF concept is highly relevant in work disability evaluations and in evaluating vocational rehabilitation. Since factors such as environmental aspects have a profound impact on the individual’s ability to perform at work, they need as much attention as other aspects related to the individual’s capacity. Using an ICF-based approach gives the opportunity to ensure that all important aspects that can contribute to work ability are covered and well described.

Work disability evaluations and follow-ups on vocational rehabilitation include different methods and perspectives. Often, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used. Today, many valid and reliable instruments are available in many languages. These instruments are also efficient and easy to administer but will be only briefly mentioned in some sections of this chapter, while the focus is on clinician reported instruments and tests.

Clinician-reported outcome measures (CROMs) are widely used as observational instruments but also as more advanced measuring methods. In this chapter, we present different CROMs, explicitly related to the different components of the ICF. We also offer suggestions on CROMs in relation to different health conditions with a special focus on musculoskeletal conditions. Furthermore, we share our experience from evaluation of a national rehabilitation program with a focus on return-to-work where observations on function based on the ICF were used.

We conclude that using ICF-based CROMs on function is convenient in clinical settings and also in more complex evaluations. There is, however, still need to assure the reliability and validity of these measures and to further develop this area.


Ankylose Spondylitis Sick Leave Work Ability Vocational Rehabilitation Disability Evaluation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems, 10th Revision 2010. Available at:
  2. 2.
    Pransky GS, Dempsey LG. Practical aspects of functional capacity evaluations. J Occup Rehabil. 2004;14:217–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Åstrand P-O, Rodahl K, Dahl HA, Strømme SB. Textbook of work physiology: physiological of bases of exercise. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2003.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Strijk JE, Proper KI, van Tralen MM, Wijngaard P, van Mechelen W, van der Beek AJ. The role of work ability in the relationship between aerobic capacity and sick leave: a mediation analysis. Occup Environ Med. 2011;68:753–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Volland G, Kashman N. Reliability and validity of grip and pinch strength evaluations. J Hand Surg Am. 1984;9(2):222–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nordenskiöld UM, Grimby G. Grip force in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia and in healthy subjects. A study with the Grippit instrument. Scand J Rheumatol. 1993;22(1):14–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Massy-Westropp N, Health M, Rankin W, Aern M, Krishnan J, Hearn TC. Measuring grip strength in normal adults: reference ranges and a comparison of electronic and hydraulic instruments. J Hand Surg. 2004;29(3):514–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    American Thoracic Society. ATS statement: guidelines for the six-minute-walk-test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;166:111–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nordeman L, Gunnarsson R, Mannerkorpi K. Prognostic factors for work ability in women with chronic low back pain consulting primary health care; a 2-year prospective longitudinal cohort study. Clin J Pain. 2014;28(1):65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haldorsen EM, Kronholm K, Skouen JS, Ursin H. Predictors for outcome of a multi-modal cognitive behavioural treatment program for low back pain patients – a 12-month follow-up study. Eur J Pain. 1998;2:293–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rivilis I, van Eerd D, Cullen K, Cole DC, Irvin E, Tyson J, Mahood Q. Effectiveness of participatory ergonomic interventions on health outcomes: a systematic review. Appl Ergon. 2008;39(3):342–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gross DP, Battie MC, Asante AK. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: validity in worker’s compensation claimants. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:1294–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reference guide to Quick Exposure Check. Cited: 14 Apr 2014. Available at:
  14. 14.
    Sandqvist JL, Gullberg MT, Henriksson CM, Gerdle BU. Content validity and utility of the Assessment of Work Performance (AWP). Work. 2008;30(4):441–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kielhofner G. A model of human occupations. 5th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Den Berg TI, Elders LA, De Zwart BC, Burdorf A. The effects of work-related and individual factors on the Work Ability Index: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med. 2009;66:211–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lidwall U, Bergendorff S, Voss M, Marklund S. Long term sickness absence: changes in risk factors and the population at risk. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2009;22(2):157–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bevan S, McGee R, Quadrello T. Fit for work? Musculoskeletal disorders in Sweden. The work foundation. 2009.
  19. 19.
    Ndosi M, Bremander A, Hamnes B, Horton M, Kukkurainen ML, Machado P, Marques A, Meesters J, Stamm TA, Tennant A, de la Torre-Aboki J, Vliet Vlieland TP, Zangi HA, Hill J. Validation of the educational needs assessment tool as a generic instrument for rheumatic diseases in seven European countries. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013. Aug 6. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brouwer S, Franche RL, Hogg-Johnson S, Lee H, Krause N, Shaw WS. Return-to-work self-efficacy: development and validation of a scale in claimants with musculoskeletal disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21:234–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Richard S, Dionne CE, Nouwen A. Self-efficacy and health locus of control: relationship to occupational disability among workers with back pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21:421–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Labriola M, Lund T, Christiensen KB, Albertsen K, Bultmann U, Jensen JN, Villadsen E. Does self-efficacy predict return-to-work after sickness absence? A prospective study among 930 employees with sickness absence for three weeks or more. Work. 2007;29:233–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hubertsson J, Englund M, Hallgårde U, Lidwall U, Löfvendahl S, Petersson IF. Sick leave patterns in common musculoskeletal disorders – a study of doctor prescribed sick leave. BMC Musculoskeletal; May 24, 2014;15:176.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Uhlig T, Moe R, Reinsberg S, Kvien TK, Cieza A, Stucki G. Responsiveness of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(6):879–84. doi: 10.1136/ard.2008.088708. Epub 2008 Jul 14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eberhardt KB, Svensson B, Moritz U. Functional assessment of early rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol. 1988;27(5):364–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bremander AB, Petersson IF, Roos EM. Validation of the Rheumatoid and Arthritis Outcome Score (RAOS) for the lower extremity. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):55.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eurenius E, Stenström CH. Physical activity, physical fitness, and general health perception among individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;53(1):48–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hagel S, Lindqvist E, Petersson IF, Nilsson JÅ, Bremander A. Validation of outcome measurement instruments used in a multidisciplinary rehabilitation intervention for patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis – linkage to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), construct validity and responsiveness to change. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(5):411–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fries J. The hierarchy of quality-of-life assessment, the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), and issues mandating development of a toxicity index. Control Clin Trials. 1991;12(4 Suppl):106S–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Haglund E, Bergman S, Petersson IF, Jacobsson L, Strömbeck B, Bremander A. Differences in physical activity patterns in patients with spondyloarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013;65:492Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hagel S, Lindqvist E, Bremander A, Petersson IF. Team-based rehabilitation improves long-term aerobic capacity and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(20):1686–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Paradowski PT, Bergman S, Sundén-Lundius A, Lohmander LS, Roos EM. Knee complaints vary with age and gender in the adult population. Population-based reference data for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:38.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bremander AB, Dahl LL, Roos EM. Validity and reliability of functional performance tests in meniscectomized patients with or without knee osteoarthritis. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2007;17(2):120–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hill JC, et al. Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9802):1560–71.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jensen I, Wåhlin C, Dahlgren M, Hjalmársson L, Ziemelis S, Blomquist P, Hagström R, Berndtsson A, Nordrup E, Ivarsson Walther R, McKeogh M, Carlstedt-Duke B, Stigmar K, Rahm L, Eden L. Riktlinjer vid ländryggsbesvär. En sammanställning från Företagshälsans riktlinjegrupp 1/2013. Cited: 2 Apr 2014. Available at: (in Swedish).
  36. 36.
    Rehabiliteringsgarantin – En rapport från Inspektionen för socialförsäkringen. Rapport 2012:17, Stockholm. 2012;17:10–11 (Summary in English).
  37. 37.
    WHO. Comprehensive ICF core set for chronic wide-spread pain. Cited: 11 Mar 2014. Available at:
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
    Cieza A, Stucki G. Content comparison of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Qual Life Res. 2005;14(5):12225–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stigmar KE, Petersson IF, Jöud A, Grahn B. Promoting work ability in a structured national rehabilitation program in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: outcomes and predictors in a prospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:57.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Busch H, Bonnevier H, Hagberg J, Lohela Karlsson M, Bodin L, Norlund A, Jensen I. En nationell utvärdering av rehabiliteringsgarantins effekter på sjukfrånvaro och hälsa. Slutrapport del1. Enheten för interventions- och implementeringsforskning, Institutet för miljömedicin (IMM), Karolinska Institutet. Stockholm 2011 (in Swedish).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingemar F Petersson
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Birgitta Grahn
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kjerstin Stigmar
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Epidemiology and Register Centre SouthSkånes universitetssjukhusLundSweden
  2. 2.Lund UniversityLundSweden
  3. 3.Department of Health Sciences, Division of PhysiotherapyLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations