Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Test-Retest Reliability of Lifting and Carrying in a 2-day Functional Capacity Evaluation

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

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to establish test-retest reliability of lifting and carrying of a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) on two consecutive days and to verify the need for a 2-day protocol. A cohort of 50 patients (39 men, 11 women) with nonspecific low back pain were evaluated using a 2-day FCE protocol. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for weight lifted and carried. Predictive relationschips between test and retest were explored by means of a regression analysis. The results of ICC were lifting low 0.87, lifting overhead 0.87, and carrying 0.77. Performances on day 2 were on an average 6–9% higher. Other than the amount of weight handled on day 1, no variable was found to predict performance on day 2. It was concluded that test-retest reliability of lifting and carrying was good, and the need for a 2-day protocol could not be confirmed.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Lechner DE, Roth DL, Straaton KV. Functional capacity evaluations in work disability. Work 1991; 1: 37-47.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tramposh AK. The functional capacity evaluation: Measuring maximal work abilities. Occup Med State Art Rev 1993; 7: 113-124.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Reneman MF, Jaegers SMHJ, Muskee C, Schroer HTh, Goeken LNH. Functional capacity evaluation: Toepassing in Nederland? TBV 1997; 5: 139-146.

    Google Scholar 

  4. King PM, Tuckwell N, Barett TE. A critical review of functional capacity evaluations. Phys Ther 1998; 8: 852-866.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lechner DE, Jackson RJ, Roth DL, Straaton KV. Reliability and validity of a newly developed test of physical work performance. JOM 1994; 6: 997-1004.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  7. Smith RL. Therapists' ability to identify safe maximum lifting in low back patients during functional capacity evaluations. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1992; 19: 277-281.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Reneman MF, Westmaas M, Jaegers SMHJ, Goeken LNH. The inter-and intra-rater reliability of determining effort level of lifting and carrying in a functional capacity evaluation. Work 2002; 18: 23-27.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gross DP, Battie MC. Reliability of safe maximum lifting determinations of a functional capacity evaluation. Phys Ther 2002; 82: 364-371.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Johnson LJ. The kinesiophysical approach matches worker and employer needs. In: Isernhagen SJ, ed. The comprehensive guide to work injury management. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Isernhagen Work Systems. Functional capacity evaluation manual, 1st edn. Duluth, MN, 1997.

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

    Google Scholar 

  13. Borg G. Borg's perceived exertion and pain scales. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice, 2nd edn. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 4th edn., Rev., U.S. Department of Labor, 1991.

  16. Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, Fine LJ. Revised NIOSH equasion for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics 1993; 36: 749-776.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Linton SJ. Psychological risk factors for neck and back pain. In: Nachemson A, Jonsson E, eds. Neck and back pain: The scientific evidence of causes, diagnostics, and treatment. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000, pp. 57-79.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Rehabilitation, University Hospital Groningen, Haren, The Netherlands

    M.F. Reneman & L.N.H. Göeken

  2. Pain Center, Center for Rehabilitation, Northern Center for Health Care Research, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    P.U. Dijkstra

  3. Institute for Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    M. Westmaas & L.N.H. Göeken

Authors
  1. M.F. Reneman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P.U. Dijkstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Westmaas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L.N.H. Göeken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reneman, M., Dijkstra, P., Westmaas, M. et al. Test-Retest Reliability of Lifting and Carrying in a 2-day Functional Capacity Evaluation. J Occup Rehabil 12, 269–275 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020274624791

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020274624791

Search

Navigation