ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2014
Experts opinion on the use of normative data for functional capacity evaluation in occupational and rehabilitation medicine and disability claims.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Functional capacity evaluations in medico-legal contexts: a scoping review of best practices, limitations, and areas for improvement.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Linking the Spinal Function Sort and Functional Capacity Evaluation Tests to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set of Vocational Rehabilitation.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Functional Capacity Evaluation Research: Report from the Second International Functional Capacity Evaluation Research Meeting.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedKuijer, P Paul F M [corrected to Kuijer, P Paul]
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeApplication 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsBaseline 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'.
conclusionsAlthough 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24659470What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.