Functional Capacity Evaluation and Preemployment Screening

  • Elizabeth Chapman
  • Anne M. Felts
  • Matthew Klinker
Reference work entry

Abstract

Post-offer employment testing programs reduce musculoskeletal injuries, reduce claims costs, decrease turnover, and are cost-effective. They also provide a baseline of the candidate’s functional abilities which is useful should an injury occur in the future. It is important to consider the legislation that affects the development and management of the program. Clinicians looking to develop these programs for employers need to ensure they have the knowledge, skills, and training related to physical demands analysis, functional assessment, and test validation. They should also understand the applicable legislation that governs this type of testing and is capable of program development and management of such a program.

Keywords

Pre-employment screening Post-offer screening Post-offer employment testing Preplacement functional assessment Baseline testing 

References

  1. Adams EM (2016) Human rights at work: physical standards for employment and human rights law1. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab.  https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2015-0552
  2. Anderson C, Briggs J (2008) A study of the effectiveness of ergonomically-based functional screening tests and their relationship to reducing workers compensation injuries. Work 31:27–37Google Scholar
  3. Arvey RD, Nutting SM, Landon TE (1992) Validation strategies for physical ability testing in police and fire settings. Public Pers Manag 21:301–312.  https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609202100302Google Scholar
  4. Atuahene F, Fretvaldas A (1987) Comparisons of dynamic, static, & psychophysical evaluations of human strength capacities. J Human Ergo 16:179–191Google Scholar
  5. Birzer ML, Craig DE (1996) Gender differences in police physical ability test performance. Am J Police 15:93–108.  https://doi.org/10.1108/07358549610122494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaffin DB, Herrin GD, Keyserling WM (1978) Pre-employment strength testing an updated position. J Occup Med 20:403–408Google Scholar
  7. Courtright SH, Mccormick BW, Postlethwaite BE et al (2013) A meta-analysis of sex differences in physical ability: revised estimates and strategies for reducing differences in selection contexts. J Appl Psychol 98:623–641.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dale AM, Addison L, Lester J et al (2013) Weak grip strength does not predict upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms or injuries among new workers. J Occup Rehabil 24:325–331.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-013-9460-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daly-Gawenda D, Kempinski PD, Hudson EK (1986) Pre-employment screening: its use and usefulness. AAOHN J 34(6):269–271Google Scholar
  10. Dueker JA, Ritchie SM, Knox TJ, Rose SJ (1994) Isokinetic trunk testing and employment. J Occup Med 36:42–48Google Scholar
  11. Evanoff B, Kymes S (2010) Modeling the cost–benefit of nerve conduction studies in pre-employment screening for carpal tunnel syndrome. Scand J Work Environ Health 36:299–304.  https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamberg-van Reenen HH, Ariens GAM, Blatter BM et al (2007) A systematic review of the relationship between physical capacity and future low back and neck/shoulder pain. Pain 130:93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harley A, James C (2006) Firefighters perspectives of the accuracy of the physical aptitude test (PAT) as a pre-employment assessment. Work 26:29–35Google Scholar
  14. Hearing Conservation (2002) In: Hearing conservation. https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3074/osha3074.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2017
  15. Hogan J (1991) Structure of physical performance in occupational tasks. J Appl Psychol 76:495–507.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.4.495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Houghton AM, Edmondson-Jones JP, Harris LA (1989) Pre-employment screening: use or ornament? Occup Med 39:51–55.  https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/39.2.51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, Miller (2001) Functional testing: approaches and injury management integration. Work 16:7–11Google Scholar
  18. Legge J (2013) The evolving role of physiotherapists in pre-employment screening for workplace injury prevention: are functional capacity evaluations the answer? Phys Ther Rev 18:350–357.  https://doi.org/10.1179/1743288x13y.0000000101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Legge J, Burgess-Limerick R, Peeters G (2013) A new pre-employment functional capacity evaluation predicts longer-term risk of musculoskeletal injury in healthy workers. Spine 38:2208–2215.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Littleton M (2003) Cost-effectiveness of a pre-work screening program for the University of Illinois at Chicago physical plant. Work 21:243–250Google Scholar
  21. Mahmud N, Schonstein E, Schaafsma F et al (2010) Pre-employment examinations for preventing occupational injury and disease in workers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd008881
  22. Matheson LN (2003) The functional capacity evaluation. In: Andersson G, Demeter S, Smith G (eds) Disability evaluation, 2nd edn. Mosby Yearbook, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  23. Nassau DW (1999) The effects of prework functional screening on lowering an employers injury rate, medical costs, and lost work days. Spine 24:269–274.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199902010-00015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Payne W, Harvey J (2010) A framework for the design and development of physical employment tests and standards. Ergonomics 53:858–871.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2010.489964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Randolph DC (2000) Use of functional employment testing to facilitate safe job placement. Occup Med 15(4):813–821Google Scholar
  26. Rosenblum KE, Shankar A (2006) A study of the effects of isokinetic pre-employment physical capability screening in the reduction of musculoskeletal disorders in labor intensive work environment. Work 26:215–228Google Scholar
  27. Ryan AM et al (1996) Perceived job relatedness of physical ability testing for firefighters: exploring variations in reactions. Hum Perform 9(3):219–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scott L (2002) Post offer screening. AAOHN J 50:559–563Google Scholar
  29. Serra C, Rodriguez MC, Delclos GL et al (2007) Criteria and methods used for the assessment of fitness for work: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med 64:304–312.  https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2006.029397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simons G, Genovese E, Galper JS (2009) Legal issues in employment screening. In: Guide to the evaluation of functional ability. USA: American Medical Association, pp 386–389Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Chapman
    • 1
  • Anne M. Felts
    • 1
  • Matthew Klinker
    • 1
  1. 1.Workforce SolutionsBTE TechnologiesGreenwood VillageUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Andrew McIntosh
    • 1
  1. 1.CremorneAustralia

Personalised recommendations