Skip to main content
Log in

Test–Retest Reliability of the Isernhagen Work Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain

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

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate test–retest reliability of the Isernhagen Work System Functional Capacity Evaluation (IWS FCE) in a sample of patients (n = 30) suffering from Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) and selected for rehabilitation treatment. The IWS FCE consists of 28 tests that reflect work-related activities like lifting, carrying, bending, etc. In this study, a slightly modified IWS FCE was used. Patients were included in the study if they were still at work or were less than 1 year out of work because of CLBP. Participants' mean age was 40 years, the duration of low back pain ranged between 5 and 10 years. Fifteen patients (50%) were out of work for a mean of 17 weeks, and they all received financial compensation. Two FCE sessions were held with a 2-week interval in between. Means per session, 95% confidence intervals of the mean difference, one-way random Intra Class Correlations (ICC), limits of agreement, Cohen's kappa and percentage of absolute agreement were calculated where appropriate. An ICC of 0.75 or more, a kappa value of more than 0.60 and a percentage of absolute agreement of 80% were considered as an acceptable reliability. Tests of the IWC FCE were divided into tests with and tests without an acceptable test–retest reliability on the basis of the kappa values, the percentage of absolute agreement and the ICC values. Fifteen tests (79%) showed an acceptable test–retest reliability based on Kappa values and percentage of absolute agreement. Eleven tests (61%) showed an acceptable test–retest reliability based on ICC values.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. King,PM, Tuckwell,N, Barrett,TE. A critical review of Functional Capacity Evaluations. Phys Ther 1998; 78: 852-866.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Abdel-Moty,E, Fishbain,DA, Khalil,TM, Sadek,S, Cutler,R, Rosomoff,RS, Rosomoff,HL. Functional capacity and residual functional capacity and their utility in measuring work capacity. Clin J Pain 1993; 9: 2003-2013.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gross,DP, Battie,MC. Reliability of safe maximum lifting determinations of a functional capacity evaluation. Phys Ther 2002; 82: 364-371.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Reneman,MF, Dijkstra,PU, Westmaas,M, Göeken,LNH. Test-retest reliability of lifting and carrying in a 2-day functional capacity evaluation. J Occup Rehab 2002; 12: 269-275.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hart,DL. Test-retest reliability of the static push/pull tests for functional capacity evaluations. Phys Ther 1988; 68: 824.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Reneman,MF, Bults,MMWE, Engbers,LH, Mulders,KKG, Goeken,LNH. Measuring maximum holding times and perception of static elevated work and forward bending in healthy young adults. J Occup Rehab 2001, 11(2): 87-97.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Isernhagen Work Systems. Functional Capacity procedure manual 1st edn. Duluth, MN, 1997.

  8. Reneman,M.F., Jaegers,SMHJ, Westmaas,M, Göeken,LNH. The reliability of determining effort level of lifting and carrying. Work 2002; 18: 23-27.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bland,JM, Altman,DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 8: 307-310.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lee,J, Koh,D, Ong,CN. Statistical evaluation of agreement between two methods for measuring quantitative variable. Comput Biol Med 1989; 19: 61-70.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tammemagi,MC, Frank, JW, LeBlanc,M, Artsob,H, Streiner,DL. Methodological issues in assessing reproducibility-A comparative study of various indices of reproducibility applied to repeat elisa serologic tests for lyme disease. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 9: 1123-1132. (b)Altman,DG.Practical statistics for medical research. London:Chapman & Hall, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Streiner,DL, Norman,GR. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Innes,E, Straker,L. Reliability of work-related assessments. Work 1999; 13: 107-124.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Altman,DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall, London, 1991, p 404

    Google Scholar 

  15. Evans,WJ, Cayten,CG, Green,PA. Determining the generalizability of rating scales in clinical settings. Medical Care 1981; XIX: 1211-1220.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Haas,M. Statistical methodology for reliability studies. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991; 14: 119-132.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brouwer, S., Reneman, M.F., Dijkstra, P.U. et al. Test–Retest Reliability of the Isernhagen Work Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain. J Occup Rehabil 13, 207–218 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026264519996

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026264519996

Navigation