Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Responsiveness of the Physical Work Performance Evaluation, a Functional Capacity Evaluation, in Patients with Low Back Pain

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

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Background and purpose The Physical Work Performance Evaluation (PWPE) is a functional capacity evaluation. This study investigated the responsiveness of the PWPE. Methods The internal and external responsiveness was tested. For the internal responsiveness, the change in the pre-/post-test PWPE scores of a group participating in a work rehabilitation program (n = 27) was compared to that of a comparison group of healthy subjects (n = 30). The external responsiveness was tested with the rehabilitation group, and the change in their PWPE scores was compared to concurrent and empirical criteria. Results The comparison of the change in pre-/post-test PWPE scores showed that the change for the rehabilitation group was significantly different from that for the comparison group, but only for one section of the PWPE. Changes in six criteria were seen after completion of the program, but there was no significant correlation between these changes and the change in the overall PWPE score. Discussion and conclusion The overall PWPE level of work score does not appear to have the ability to measure clinically significant changes achieved through a work rehabilitation program.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nachemson A, Waddell G, Norlund A. Epidemiology of neck and low back pain. In: Nachemson A, Jonsson E, editors. Neck and back pain: the scientific evidence of causes, diagnosis, and treatment. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Spitzer W, Leblanc F, Dupuis M. Scientific approach to the assessment and management of activity-related spinal disorders: a monograph for clinicians. Report of the Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders. Spine 1987;12(Suppl):S1–S59.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lechner D, Roth D, Straaton K. Functional capacity evaluation in work disability. Work 1991;1(3):37–47.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pransky GS, Dempsey PG. Practical aspects of functional capacity evaluations. J Occup Rehabil 2004;14(3):217–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gross DP. Measurement properties of performance-based assessment of functional capacity. J Occup Rehabil 2004;14(3):165–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lechner DE. Functional capacity evaluation. In: King PM, editor. Occupational rehabilitation. New York: Plenum Press; 1998. p. 209–27.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Innes E, Straker L. Reliability of work-related assessments. Work 1999;13(2):107–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Matheson LN, Mooney V, Grant JE, Leggett S, Kenny K. Standardized evaluation of work capacity. J Back Musculoskeletal Rehabil 1996;6:249–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gibson L, Strong J. A review of functional capacity evaluation practice. Work 1997;9:3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. King PM, Tuckwell N, Barrett TE. A critical review of functional capacity evaluations. Phys Ther 1998;78(8):852–66.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 1991;12(4 Suppl):142S–58S.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987;40(2):171–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lechner DE. Work hardening and work conditioning interventions: do they affect disability? Phys Ther 1994;74(5):471–93.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53(5):459–68.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lechner DE, Jackson JR, Roth DL, Straaton KV. Reliability and validity of a newly developed test of physical work performance. J Occup Med 1994;36(9):997–1004.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. US Department of Labor, Employment, Training Administration. Revised dictionary of occupational titles. 4th ed. Washington: US Government Printing Office; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lechner DE. Physical Work Performance Evaluation. Birmingham, AL: The University of Alabama at Birmingham Research Foundation; 1993.

  20. Durand MJ, Loisel P, Poitras S, Mercier R, Stock SR, Lemaire J. The inter-rater reliability of a functional capacity evaluation: the Physical Work Performance Evaluation. J Occup Rehabil 2004;14(2):119–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tuckwell NL, Straker L, Barrett TE. Test–retest reliability on nine tasks of the Physical Work Performance Evaluation. Work 2002;19:243–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Brassard B, Durand MJ, Loisel P, Lemaire J. Étude de fidélité test–retest de l’Évaluation des Capacités Physiques reliées au Travail. Can J Occup Ther 2006;73(4):206–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fairbank JCT, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 2000;25:2940–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 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;52:157–68.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Dionne CE, Bourbonnais R, Fremont P, Rossignol M, Stock SR, Larocque I. A clinical return-to-work rule for patients with back pain. CMAJ 2005;172(12):1559–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. van der Hulst M, Vollenbroek-Hutten MM, Ijzerman MJ. A systematic review of sociodemographic, physical, and psychological predictors of multidisciplinary rehabilitation-or, back school treatment outcome in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine 2005;30(7):813–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Waddell G, Burton AK, Main CJ. Screening to identify people at risk of long-term incapacity for work. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stratford PW, Binkley FM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther 1996;76(10):1109–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Shephard RJ. Present views on the Canadian Home Fitness Test. CMAJ 1981;124(7):875–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Shephard RJ, Cox M, Corey P, Smyth R. Some factors affecting accuracy of Canadian Home Fitness Test scores. Can J Appl 1979;4(3):205–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bailey DA, Shephard RJ, Mirwald RL. Validation of a self-administered home test of cardiorespiratory fitness. Can J Appl Sports Sci 1976;1(1):67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Morgan K, Hugues AO, Philipp R. Reliability of a test of cardiovascular fitness. Int J Epidemiol 1984;13(1):32–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Crombez G, Vlaeyen JWS, Heuts PHTG, 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;80:329–39.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ilfeld FW. Further validation of a Psychiatric Symptom Index in a normal population. Psychol Rep 1976;39:1215–28.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Préville M, Boyer R, Potvin L, Perrault C, Légaré G. La détresse psychologique: détermination de la fiabilité et de la validité de la mesure utilisée dans l’enquête santé Québec. Montréal: Ministère de la Santé des Services Sociaux; 1992.

  37. Von Korff M, Jensen MP, Karoly P. Assessing global pain severity by self-report in clinical and health services research. Spine 2000;25(24):3140–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Durand MJ. Étude des effets du retour thérapeutique au travail chez des travailleurs absents du travail suite à une lésion professionnelle au dos. Sherbrooke, Qc: Université de Sherbrooke; 1994.

  39. Scott J, Huskisson EC. Vertical or horizontal visual analogue scales. Ann Rheum Dis 1979;38(6):560.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Ohnhous EE, Adler R. Methodological problems in the measurements of pain: a comparison between the verbal rating scale and the visual analogue scale. Pain 1975;1:377–84.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wilkie D, Lovejoy N, Dodd M, Tesler M. Cancer pain intensity measurement: concurrent validity of three tools—finger dynamometer, pain intensity number scale, visual analogue scale. Hosp J 1990;6(1):1–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Gill C, Finch E. Assessing change over time in patients with low back pain. Phys Ther 1994;74(6):528–33.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Loisel P, Durand P, Abenhaim L, Gosselin L, Simard R, Turcotte J, et al. Management of occupational back pain: the Sherbrooke model. Results of a pilot and feasibility study. Occup Environ Med 1994;51(9):597–602.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Loisel P, Abenhaim L, Durand P, Esdaile JM, Suissa S, Gosselin L, et al. A population-based, randomized clinical trial on back pain management. Spine 1997;22(24):2911–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Loisel P, Durand MJ. Worker accommodation, clinical intervention, return to work. In: Sullivan T, Frank J (editors). Preventing and managing disability at work. London: Taylor & Francis; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Durand M-J, Loisel P, Hong QN, Charpentier N. Helping clinicians in work disability prevention: the work disability diagnosis interview. J Occup Rehabil 2002;12(3):191–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Durand MJ, Loisel P, Durand P. Therapeutic return to work: rehabilitation in the workplace. Work 2001;17:57–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nachemson A. Back pain: delimiting the problem in the next millennium. Int J Law Psychiatry 1999;22(5–6):473–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF–12: how to score the SF–12 physical and mental health summary scales. 3rd ed. Lincoln: Quality Metric Incorporated; 1998.

  50. McHorney CA, Kosinski M, Ware JE. Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 Health Survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: results from a national survey. Med Care 1994;32(6):551–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P. Testing the validity of the EuroQOL and comparing it with the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1993;2:169–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Douglas W. Questionnaire d’évaluation des habitudes de vie (traduit et adapté avec la permission du Fantastic Lifestyle Assessment). Hamilton: Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University; 1985.

  53. Gross DP, Battie MC. Factors influencing results of functional capacity evaluations in workers’ compensation claimants with low back pain. Phys Ther 2005;85(4):315–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Loisel P, Durand M-J, Berthelette D, Vézina N, Baril R, Gagnon D, et al. Disability prevention: the new paradigm of management of occupational back pain. Dis Manag Health Outcomes 2001;9(7):351–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Waddell G, Burton AK. Concepts of rehabilitation for the management of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2005;19(4):655–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Frank J, Sinclair S, Hogg-Johnson S, Shannon H, Bombardier C, Beaton D, et al. Preventing disability from work-related low-back pain: new evidence gives new hope—if we can just get all the players onside. CMAJ 1998;158(12):1625–31.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rehabilitation, Université de Sherbrooke, Longueuil, QC, Canada

    Marie-José Durand & Patrick Loisel

  2. Centre for Action in Work Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation (CAPRIT), 1111, Saint-Charles Street West, Suite 101, Longueuil, QC, Canada, J4K 5G4

    Marie-José Durand, Quan Nha Hong & Patrick Loisel

  3. Logikergo, Anjou, QC, Canada

    Bruno Brassard

  4. Department of Nursing, Université de Sherbrooke, Longueuil, QC, Canada

    Jacques Lemaire

Authors
  1. Marie-José Durand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bruno Brassard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Quan Nha Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jacques Lemaire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Patrick Loisel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-José Durand.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Durand, MJ., Brassard, B., Hong, Q.N. et al. Responsiveness of the Physical Work Performance Evaluation, a Functional Capacity Evaluation, in Patients with Low Back Pain. J Occup Rehabil 18, 58–67 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-007-9118-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-007-9118-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation