• Sara Kersnovske, Libby Gibson, and Jenny Strong.
• Department of Occupational Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia.
• Work. 2005 Jan 1; 24 (2): 157-69.

AbstractThis study assessed the item validity of 15 of the physical demands from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), as evaluated in a new approach to functional capacity evaluation (FCE) for clients with chronic back pain, the Gibson Approach to FCE (GAPP FCE). Fifty-two occupational therapists were sent the specifications of the items in the GAPP FCE procedures and were asked to rate the items in terms of item-objective congruence, relevance and difficulty. A response rate of 59.2% was obtained. The majority of the therapists agreed that most of the items were congruent with the objectives based on the definition of the physical demands from the DOT. The items evaluating Balancing and Pushing and Pulling had the lowest item-objective congruence. The evaluation of Balancing and the Lifting, Carrying and Pushing and Pulling of loads greater than light-medium weight (10-16 kg) were not considered significantly relevant. Concerns were raised about the difficulty and safety of the evaluation of Lifting, Carrying and Pushing and Pulling with clients with chronic back pain, particularly if the therapist evaluates the manual handling of medium to heavy loads. These results may have implications for other FCEs, particularly those which are based on the DOT, or when assessing clients with chronic back pain.

10 keywords...

hide…