The reliability of WorkWell Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation: a systematic review

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Matthias Bethge¹  Sebastian Bieniek¹ 

[1] Department for Rehabilitation Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany

关键词: Isernhagen;    WorkWell Systems;    Systematic review;    Reliability;    Assessment;    Functional capacity evaluation;   

Others  :  1127807
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-106

 received in 2013-07-11, accepted in 2014-03-19,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Functional capacity evaluation (FCE) determines a person’s ability to perform work-related tasks and is a major component of the rehabilitation process. The WorkWell Systems (WWS) FCE (formerly known as Isernhagen Work Systems FCE) is currently the most commonly used FCE tool in German rehabilitation centres. Our systematic review investigated the inter-rater, intra-rater and test-retest reliability of the WWS FCE.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search of studies on the reliability of the WWS FCE and extracted item-specific measures of inter-rater, intra-rater and test-retest reliability from the identified studies. Intraclass correlation coefficients ≥ 0.75, percentages of agreement ≥ 80%, and kappa coefficients ≥ 0.60 were categorised as acceptable, otherwise they were considered non-acceptable. The extracted values were summarised for the five performance categories of the WWS FCE, and the results were classified as either consistent or inconsistent.

Results

From 11 identified studies, 150 item-specific reliability measures were extracted. 89% of the extracted inter-rater reliability measures, all of the intra-rater reliability measures and 96% of the test-retest reliability measures of the weight handling and strength tests had an acceptable level of reliability, compared to only 67% of the test-retest reliability measures of the posture/mobility tests and 56% of the test-retest reliability measures of the locomotion tests. Both of the extracted test-retest reliability measures of the balance test were acceptable.

Conclusions

Weight handling and strength tests were found to have consistently acceptable reliability. Further research is needed to explore the reliability of the other tests as inconsistent findings or a lack of data prevented definitive conclusions.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Bieniek and Bethge; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Raspe H: Need for rehabilitation services: theoretical considerations in “needs assessment”. Rehabilitation 2007, 46:3-8.
• [2]Deutsche Rentenversicherung: Reha-Bericht Update 2012. Die medizinische und berufliche Rehabilitation der Rentenversicherung im Licht der Statistik. Berlin: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund; 2012.
• [3]Bethge M: Success factors of work-related orthopaedic rehabilitation. Rehabilitation 2011, 50:145-151.
• [4]Bethge M, Herbold D, Trowitzsch L, Jacobi C: Work status and health-related quality of life following multimodal work hardening: a cluster randomised trial. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2011, 24:161-172.
• [5]Streibelt M, Buschmann-Steinhage R: A profile of requirements for the performance of work related medical rehabilitation from the perspective of the statutory pension insurance. Rehabilitation 2011, 50:160-167.
• [6]Streibelt M, Thren K, Müller-Fahrnow W: Effects of FCE-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders - results of a randomized controlled trial. Phys Med Rehab Kuror 2009, 19:34-41.
• [7]Lukasczik M, Wolf HD, Gerlich C, Löffler S, Vogel H, Faller H, Neuderth S: Current state of vocationally oriented medical rehabilitation–a German perspective. Disabil Rehabil 2011, 33:2646-2655.
• [8]Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG: Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with functional restoration. Spine J 2008, 8:65-69.
• [9]Schaafsma F, Schonstein E, Whelan KM, Ulvestad E, Kenny DT, Verbeek JH: Physical conditioning programs for improving work outcomes in workers with back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010, (1):CD001822. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001822.pub2
• [10]Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund: Anforderungsprofil zur Durchführung der Medizinisch-beruflich orientierten Rehabilitation (MBOR) im Auftrag der Deutschen Rentenversicherung. 3., überarbeitete Auflage. Berlin: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund; 2012.
• [11]Isernhagen SJ: Functional capacity evaluation: rationale, procedure, utility of the kinesiophysical approach. J Occup Rehabil 1992, 2:157-168.
• [12]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, 13:207-218.
• [13]Genovese E, Galper JS (Eds): Guide to the evaluation of functional ability: how to request, interpret, and apply fuctional capacity evaluation. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2009.
• [14]Innes E, Straker L: Reliability of work-related assessments. Work 1999, 13:107-124.
• [15]Gouttebarge V, Wind H, Kuijer PP, Frings-Dresen MH: Reliability and validity of functional capacity evaluation methods: a systematic review with reference to Blankenship system, Ergos work simulator, Ergo-Kit and Isernhagen work system. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2004, 77:527-537.
• [16]Innes E: Reliability and validity of functional capacity evaluations: an update. Int J Disab Manag Res 2006, 1:135-148.
• [17]Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009, 6:e1000100.
• [18]Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, De Vet HC: Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res 2012, 21:651-657.
• [19]Smith RL: Therapists’ ability to identify safe maximum lifting in low back pain patients during functional capacity evaluation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1994, 19:277-281.
• [20]Gardener L, McKenna K: Reliability of occupational therapists in determining safe, maximal lifting capacity. Aust Occup Ther J 1999, 46:110-119.
• [21]Isernhagen SJ, Hart DL, Matheson LM: Reliability of independent observer judgments of level of lift effort in a kinesiophysical functional capacity evaluation. Work 1999, 12:145-150.
• [22]Reneman MF, Bults MM, Engbers LH, Mulders KK, Goeken LN: Measuring maximum holding times and perception of static elevated work and forward bending in healthy young adults. J Occup Rehabil 2001, 11:87-97.
• [23]Gross DP, Battie MC: Reliability of safe maximum lifting determinations of a functional capacity evaluation. Phys Ther 2002, 82:364-371.
• [24]Reneman MF, Jaegers SM, Westmaas M, Goeken LN: The reliability of determining effort level of lifting and carrying in a functional capacity evaluation. Work 2002, 18:23-27.
• [25]Reneman MF, Dijkstra PU, Westmaas M, Goeken LN: Test-retest reliability of lifting and carrying in a 2-day functional capacity evaluation. J Occup Rehabil 2002, 12:269-275.
• [26]Reneman MF, Brouwer S, Meinema A, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JH, Groothoff JW: Test-retest reliability of the Isernhagen work systems functional capacity evaluation in healthy adults. J Occup Rehabil 2004, 14:295-305.
• [27]Marmer KS, Velasquez EM, Cifu DX: Measuring reliability of effort in functional capacity evaluations using digital video analysis. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2002, 16:169-175.
• [28]Reneman MF, Fokkens AS, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JH, Groothoff JW: Testing lifting capacity: validity of determining effort level by means of observation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005, 30:E40-E46.
• [29]Soer R, Gerrits EH, Reneman MF: Test-retest reliability of a WRULD functional capacity evaluation in healthy adults. Work 2006, 26:273-280.
• [30]van Ittersum MW, Bieleman HJ, Reneman MF, Oosterveld FG, Groothoff JW, van der Schans CP: Functional capacity evaluation in subjects with early osteoarthritis of hip and/or knee; is two-day testing needed? J Occup Rehabil 2009, 19:238-244.
• [31]Schapmire DW, St James JD, Townsend R, Feeler L: Accuracy of visual estimation in classifying effort during a lifting task. Work 2011, 40:445-457.
• [32]Trippolini MA, Reneman MF, Jansen B, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JH: Reliability and safety of functional capacity evaluation in patients with whiplash associated disorders. J Occup Rehabil 2013, 23:381-390.
• [33]Trippolini MA, Dijkstra PU, Jansen B, Oesch P, Geertzen JH, Reneman MF: Reliability of clinician rated physical effort determination during functional capacity evaluation in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. J Occup Rehabil[Epub ahead of print], doi:10.1007/s10926-013-9470-9
• [34]Staal JB, Hlobil H, Twisk JW, Smid T, Koke AJ, van Mechelen W: Graded activity for low back pain in occupational health care: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2004, 140:77-84.
• [35]Gross DP, Battie MC, Asante A: Development and validation of a short-form functional capacity evaluation for use in claimants with low back disorders. J Occup Rehabil 2006, 16:53-62.
• [36]Gross DP, Battie MC, Cassidy JD: The prognostic value of functional capacity evaluation in patients with chronic low back pain: part 1: timely return to work. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004, 29:914-919.