Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experts Opinion on the Use of Normative Data for Functional Capacity Evaluation in Occupational and Rehabilitation Medicine and Disability Claims

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

An Erratum to this article was published on 29 May 2014

Abstract

Purpose Application of normative values for functional capacity evaluation (FCE) is controversial for the assessment of clients for work ability. The objective of this study was to study when clinicians and researchers consider normative values of FCE useful or of no use for their purposes. Methods A focus group meeting was organized among 43 FCE experts working in insurance, occupational and/or rehabilitation medicine from eight countries during the first international FCE research meeting on October 25th, 2012 in the Netherlands. Participants were asked to rate to which degree they agree or disagree with a statement concerning their position toward normative values for FCE on a 10 cm VAS ranging from 0 (completely disagree) to 100 (completely agree) at T0 and T1. Arguments for aspects that are useful and of no use for normative values were systematically collected during the meeting and afterwards independently clustered by two researchers in higher order topics. Results Baseline opinion of participants on their position toward normative values was 49 ± 29 points. After the meeting, mean VAS was 55 ± 23 (p = 0.07), indicating that participants did not significantly change their opinion toward normative values. Based on arguments provided by the experts, seven higher order topics were constructed namely ‘Comparison with job demands or treatment goals’; ‘Comparison with co-workers physical ability’; ‘Sincerity of effort’; ‘Validity for work ability and return to work’; ‘Experience of referrer with assessment method’; ‘Clinimetrics compared to alternative assessment methods or reference values’; and ‘Ease of use for clinician and stakeholders’. Conclusions Although experts state useful aspects for the use of normative values of FCE for these assessments, it may also lead to over-interpretation of results, leading to dualistic statements concerning work ability, with potential harmful consequences for work ability of patients.

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

References

  1. 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 

  2. 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(4):295–305.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Soer R, Gerrits EH, Reneman MF. Test-retest reliability of a WRULD functional capacity evaluation in healthy adults. Work. 2006;26(3):273–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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(8):527–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lakke SE, Soer R, Geertzen JH, Wittink H, Douma RK, van der Schans CP, et al. Construct validity of functional capacity tests in healthy workers. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:180 2474-14-180.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van der Meer S, Trippolini MA, van der Palen J, Verhoeven J, Reneman MF. Which instruments can detect submaximal physical and functional capacity in patients with chronic nonspecific back pain? A systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(25):E1608–15.

  7. Gross DP, Battie MC, Asante AK. Evaluation of a short-form functional capacity evaluation: less may be best. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(3):422–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gross DP, Battie MC. Does functional capacity evaluation predict recovery in workers’ compensation claimants with upper extremity disorders? Occup Environ Med. 2006;63(6):404–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kuijer PP, Gouttebarge V, Wind H, van Duivenbooden C, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH. Prognostic value of self-reported work ability and performance-based lifting tests for sustainable return to work among construction workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2012;38(6):600–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cheng AS, Cheng SW. The predictive validity of job-specific functional capacity evaluation on the employment status of patients with nonspecific low back pain. J Occup Environ Med. 2010;52(7):719–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Streibelt M, Blume C, Thren K, Reneman MF, Mueller-Fahrnow W. Value of functional capacity evaluation information in a clinical setting for predicting return to work. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(3):429–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wind H, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PP, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH. Complementary value of functional capacity evaluation for physicians in assessing the physical work ability of workers with musculoskeletal disorders. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2009;82(4):435–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pas LW, Kuijer PP, Wind H, Sluiter JK, Groothoff JW, Brouwer S, et al. Clients’ and RTW experts’ view on the utility of FCE for the assessment of physical work ability, prognosis for work participation and advice on return to work. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2014;87(3):331–8.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wind H, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PP, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH. The utility of functional capacity evaluation: the opinion of physicians and other experts in the field of return to work and disability claims. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2006;79(6):528–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Reesink DD, Jorritsma W, Reneman MF. Basis for a functional capacity evaluation methodology for patients with work-related neck disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(3):436–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Reneman MF, Soer R, Gerrits EH. Basis for an FCE methodology for patients with work-related upper limb disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(3):353–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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(1):53–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Reneman MF, Beemster TT, Edelaar MJ, van Velzen JM, van Bennekom C, Escorpizo R. Towards an ICF- and IMMPACT-based pain vocational rehabilitation core set in the Netherlands. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(4):576–84.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Soer R, van der Schans CP, Geertzen JH, Groothoff JW, Brouwer S, Dijkstra PU, et al. Normative values for a functional capacity evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(10):1785–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Reneman MF, Kool J, Oesch P, Geertzen JH, Battie MC, Gross DP. Material handling performance of patients with chronic low back pain during functional capacity evaluation: a comparison between three countries. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28(18):1143–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Reneman MF, Wittink H, Gross DP. The scientific status of FCE. In: Galper J, editor. Guides to evaluation of functional ability. American Medical Association; 2009.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge all 43 experts from eight countries during the first international FCE research meeting on October 25th, 2012 in Haren, The Netherlands.

Conflict of interest

All authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Remko Soer & Michiel F. Reneman

  2. Groningen Spine Center, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Remko Soer & Michiel F. Reneman

  3. Expertise Center of Health, Social Care and Technology, Saxion Universities of Applied Sciences, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Remko Soer

  4. Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Monique H.W. Frings-Dresen & P. Paul F. M Kuijer

Authors
  1. Remko Soer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michiel F. Reneman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Monique H.W. Frings-Dresen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Paul F. M Kuijer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Remko Soer.

Appendix 1: The Visual Analogue Scale used in the Workshop

Appendix 1: The Visual Analogue Scale used in the Workshop

Please mark the line below indicating how much you agree or disagree with the following statement:

Without Normative Values for FCE clinical decisions concerning work ability of a client are not evidence based.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Soer, R., Reneman, M.F., Frings-Dresen, M.H. et al. Experts Opinion on the Use of Normative Data for Functional Capacity Evaluation in Occupational and Rehabilitation Medicine and Disability Claims. J Occup Rehabil 24, 806–811 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9507-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9507-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation