ArticleArchives of physical medicine and rehabilitation2018
Validation of the Work-Disability Physical Functional Assessment Battery.
Article in Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cultural adaptation of the Work Disability Functional Assessment Battery (WD-FAB) into German (Germany): hybrid application of two adaptation approaches.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Aligning metrics with meaning: considerations for measurement selection in disability evaluation.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the validity of the self-report Work-Disability Functional Assessment Battery (WD-FAB) physical function scales relative to clinician ratings of function and a performance-based functional capacity evaluation called the Physical Work Performance Evaluation (PWPE).
designCross-sectional.
settingOutpatient rehabilitation.
participantsAdults (N=50) participating in physical therapy for musculoskeletal conditions.
interventionsNot applicable.
main outcome measuresPatients completed the PWPE and the WD-FAB physical function scales including Changing and Maintaining Body Position, Whole Body Mobility, Upper Body Function, and Upper Extremity Fine Motor. The physical therapist also answered the WD-FAB questions on the patient's physical functioning. The WD-FAB computer-adaptive test version administered up to 10 items for each scale. The PWPE produces ratings from 0 to 5 indicating overall Level of Work ability: 0 (unable to work); 1 (sedentary); 2 (light); 3 (medium); 4 (heavy); 5 (very heavy). The PWPE also produces Level of Work ability ratings in the Dynamic Strength, Position Tolerance, and Mobility subsections.
resultsParticipating in the study were 50 patients with 1 or more conditions (shoulder, n=21; knee, n=16; low back, n=13; ankle/foot, n=10; neck, n=8; hip, n=7). The patient-based WD-FAB scores demonstrated moderate, statistically significant correlations with the provider proxy WD-FAB report (R=.49-.65). The WD-FAB Upper Body Function scale scores demonstrated moderate strength relationships with the PWPE overall ratings. The Whole Body Mobility and Changing and Maintaining Body Position scales did not demonstrate statistically significant relationships with the PWPE overall ratings.
conclusionsWe found moderate evidence for validity for the WD-FAB Upper Body Function, Whole Body Mobility, and Changing and Maintaining Body Position scales relative to clinician report and varied evidence relative to the PWPE in this clinical sample.
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.