Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of two lifting assessment approaches in patients with chronic low back pain

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

Abstract

The Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation (PILE) and the lifting test of the WorkWell Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation (WWS) are well known as lifting performance tests. The objective of this study was to study whether the PILE and the WWS can be used interchangeably in patients with Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) and to explore whether psychosocial variables can explain possible differences. Methods: 53 Patients (32 men and 21 women) with CLBP were tested twice in a counter balanced design. Pearson Correlation Coefficient of r > 0.75 and non-significant differences on two-tailed t tests were considered as good comparability. Results: Pearson Correlation Coefficient was 0.75 (p < 0.01). Lifting performance on the WWS was a mean of 6.0 kg higher compared to the PILE (p < 0.01). The difference between the PILE and the WWS was unrelated to psychological variables. Conclusion: It can be concluded that the PILE and the WWS cannot be used interchangeably. Psychosocial variables cannot explain the differences between both tests.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  1. Hansson E, Hansson T, Jonsson R. Predictors for work ability and disability in men and women with low-back or neck problems. Eur Spine J 2005.

  2. Gross DP, Battie MC. Reliability of safe maximum lifting determinations of a functional capacity evaluation. Phys Ther 2002;82(4):364–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Johnson LJ. The kinesiophysical approach matches worker and employer needs. Isernhagen SJ. The comprehensive guide to work injury management. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers; 1995. p. 399–409.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Snook SH, Ciriello VM. The design of manual handling tasks: revised tables of maximum acceptable weights and forces. Ergonomics 1991;34(9):1197–213.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Khalil TM, Goldberg ML, Asfour SS, Moty EA, Rosomoff RS, Rosomoff HL. Acceptable maximum effort (AME). A psychophysical measure of strength in back pain patients. Spine 1987;12(4):372–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Isernhagen SJ. Work injury, management and prevention. Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA: Aspen publishers, inc; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mayer TG, Barnes D, Kishino ND, Nichols G, Gatchel RJ, Mayer H, Mooney V. Progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation. I. A standardized protocol and normative database. Spine 1988;13(9):993–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Isernhagen SJ. Functional capacity evaluation: rationale, procedure, utility of the kinesiophysical appproach. J Occup Rehabil 1992;2(3):157–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. IJmker S, Gerrits EH, Reneman MF. Upper lifting performance of healthy young adults in functional capacity evaluations: a comparison of two protocols. J Occup Rehabil 2003;13(4):297–305.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Geisser ME, Robinson ME, Miller QL, Bade SM. Psychosocial factors and functional capacity evaluation among persons with chronic pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2003;13(4):259–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grotle M, Vollestad NK, Veierod MB, Brox JI. Fear-avoidance beliefs and distress in relation to disability in acute and chronic low back pain. Pain 2004;112(3):343–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vlaeyen JW, Kole-Snijders AM, Boeren RG, van Eek H. Fear of movement/(Re)injury in chronic low back pain and its relation to behavioral performance. Pain 1995;62(3):363–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main CJ. A fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain 1993;52(2):157–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pfingsten M, Leibing E, Harter W, Kroner-Herwig B, Hempel D, Kronshage U, Hildebrandt J. Fear-avoidance behavior and anticipation of pain in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled study. Pain Med 2001;2(4):259–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lygren H, Dragesund T, Joensen J, Ask T, Moe-Nilssen R. Test-retest reliability of the progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation (PILE). Spine 2005;30(9):1070–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Brouwer S, Reneman MF, Dijkstra PU, Groothoff JW, Schellekens JM, Goeken LN. Test-retest reliability of the isernhagen work systems functional capacity evaluation in patients with chronic low back pain. J Occup Rehabil 2003;13(4):207–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Crombez G, Vlaeyen JW, Heuts PH, Lysens R. Pain-related fear is more disabling than pain itself: evidence on the role of pain-related fear in chronic back pain disability. Pain 1999;80(1–2):329–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Swinkels-Meewisse EJ, Swinkels RA, Verbeek AL, Vlaeyen JW, Oostendorp RA. Psychometric properties of the tampa scale for kinesiophobia and the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire in acute low back pain. Man Ther 2003;8(1):29–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Arrindel WA, Ettema JHM. Symptom Checklist-90. Handleiding bij een multidimensionele psychopathologie-indicator. Lisse The Netherlands: Swets test publishers; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Schreurs PJG, van de Willige G, Brosschot JF, Tellegen B, Graus GMS. De Utrechtse Coping lijst: UCL. revised version ed. Utrecht: Swets test publishers; 1993.(Vakgroep klinische psychologie en Gezondheidspsychologie).

  21. Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine 2000;25(24):3115–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brouwer S, Kuijer W, Dijkstra PU, Goeken LN, Groothoff JW, Geertzen JH. Reliability and Stability of the roland morris disability questionnaire: intra class correlation and limits of agreement. Disabil Rehabil 2004;26(3):162–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Innes E, Straker L. Validity of work-related assessments. Work 1999;13(2):125–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research; applications to practice. 2 edn. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 2000.(vol. 23).

  25. U.S. Department of Labor, The revised handbook for analyzing jobs. 4 edn. JIST Works, inc., Indianapolis; 1991.

  26. Genaidy AM, Asfour SS, Mital A, Tritar M. Psychophysical capacity modeling in frequent manual materials handling activities. Hum Factors 1988;30(3):319–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Karwowski W, Shumate C, Yates JW, Pongpatana N. Discriminability of Load Heaviness: Implications for the psychophysical approach to manual lifting. Ergonomics 1992;35(7–8):729–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hodselmans AP, Jaegers SM, Goeken LN. Short-term outcomes of a back school program for chronic low back pain. Arch. Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82(8):1099–105.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Reneman MF, kool J, Oesch P, Geertzen JHB, Battie MC, Gross DP. Material handling performance of patients with chronic low back pain during functional capacity evaluation: a comparison between three countries. accepted Disabil. Rehabil. 2006.

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful for data supply from the LOBADIS 2 study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 30.002, RA, 9750, Haren, The Netherlands

    Remko Soer, Bas J. J. Poels, Jan H. B. Geertzen & Michiel F. Reneman

  2. Northern Center for Health Care Research, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Haren, The Netherlands

    Remko Soer, Bas J. J. Poels, Jan H. B. Geertzen & Michiel F. Reneman

  3. Center for Work and Health, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Michiel F. Reneman

Authors
  1. Remko Soer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bas J. J. Poels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan H. B. Geertzen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michiel F. Reneman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Remko Soer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Soer, R., Poels, B.J.J., Geertzen, J.H.B. et al. A comparison of two lifting assessment approaches in patients with chronic low back pain. J Occup Rehabil 16, 639–646 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-006-9055-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-006-9055-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation