ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2015
Construct Validity of Functional Capacity Evaluation in Patients with Whiplash-Associated Disorders.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Systematic review of the measurement properties of performance-based functional tests in patients with neck disorders.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- A Shortened Upper Extremity Functional Capacity Evaluation for Patients with Complaints of Hand, Wrist, Forearm, and Elbow: Composition and Assessment of Construct Validity and Test-Retest Reliability.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Functional Capacity Evaluation in Different Societal Contexts: Results of a Multicountry Study.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe construct validity of functional capacity evaluations (FCE) in whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) is unknown. The aim of this study was to analyse the validity of FCE in patients with WAD with cultural differences within a workers' compensation setting.
methods314 participants (42% females, mean age 36.7 years) with WAD (grade I and II) were referred for an interdisciplinary assessment that included FCE tests. Four FCE tests (hand grip strength, lifting waist to overhead, overhead working, and repetitive reaching) and a number of concurrent variables such as self-reported pain, capacity, disability, and psychological distress were measured. To test construct validity, 29 a priori formulated hypotheses were tested, 4 related to gender differences, 20 related associations with other constructs, 5 related to cultural differences.
resultsMen had significantly more hand grip strength (+17.5 kg) and lifted more weight (+3.7 kg): two out of four gender-related hypotheses were confirmed. Correlation between FCE and pain ranged from -0.39 to 0.31; FCE and self-reported capacity from -0.42 to 0.61; FCE and disability from -0.45 to 0.34; FCE and anxiety from -0.36 to 0.27; and FCE and depression from -0.41 to 0.34: 16 of 20 hypotheses regarding FCE and other constructs were confirmed. FCE test results between the cultural groups differed significantly (4 hypotheses confirmed) and effect size (ES) between correlations were small (1 hypothesis confirmed). In total 23 out of 29 hypotheses were confirmed (79%).
conclusionsThe construct validity for testing functional capacity was confirmed for the majority of FCE tests in patients with WAD with cultural differences and in a workers' compensation setting. Additional validation studies in other settings are needed for verification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.