Attributes of excellence in work-related assessments.

UNLABELLED In order for clinicians to select and conduct work-related assessments that demonstrate 'best practice', it is necessary to identify assessments that are considered 'excellent'. OBJECTIVES The aims of this study were to determine (1) the attributes associated with excellence for each of 3 types of work-related assessment (WPAs, FCEJs & FCENJs), and (2) the differences between the attributes associated with each type of work-related assessment. STUDY DESIGN A questionnaire was sent to all accredited occupational or vocational rehabilitation providers in Australia, targeting occupational therapists and physiotherapists who conducted work-related assessments. The response rate was 25.3%, and 132 questionnaires were analysed. RESULTS A MANOVA revealed that the perceived importance of 18 attributes was different between the 3 forms of work-related assessment F36, 364=6.54; p<0.001). There was a core of 7 attributes that showed no difference between assessments (accurate, comprehensive, credible, flexible, practical, safe and useful). Two attributes (generalisable and specific) were different for all 3 forms of assessment. A large group of attributes (consistent, measurable, objective, reliable, reproducible, standardised, structured and valid) demonstrated significant differences between WPAs and both forms of FCE. Relevant demonstrated significant differences between FCENJs and both WPAs and FCEJs. Reliability analysis revealed 2 constructs (dependability and utility). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that there were significant differences between 3 forms of work-related assessments (WPAs, FCEJs & FCENJs) in terms of the attributes considered necessary for excellence for each form of assessment. The attributes were considered to relate to either qualitative or quantitative features of assessment. These features were reflected in the constructs utility, which was comprised of qualitative attributes and associated with broad concepts of validity, and dependability, which was comprised of quantitative attributes and reflected concepts of reliability. There appeared to be a continuum of work-related assessment that ranged from WPAs demonstrating the most qualitative attributes to FCENJs demonstrating the most quantitative features.

[1]  Reviewing Qualitative Research: Proposed Criteria for Fairness and Rigor , 1994 .

[2]  Leon Straker,et al.  Workplace assessments and functional capacity evaluations: current practices of therapists in Australia. , 2002, Work.

[3]  L. Clemson,et al.  Understanding assessment concepts within the occupational therapy context , 1998 .

[4]  E. Spieler,et al.  Recommendations to guide revision of the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. American Medical Association. , 2000, JAMA.

[5]  Thomas A. Schwandt,et al.  Judging interpretations: But is it rigorous? trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation , 2007 .

[6]  J. Creswell.  Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. , 1998 .

[7]  M. Sandelowski,et al.  The problem of rigor in qualitative research , 1986, ANS. Advances in nursing science.

[8]  Leon Straker,et al.  Validity of work-related assessments. , 1999, Work.

[9]  E. Fess.  Guidelines for evaluating assessment instruments. , 1995, Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists.

[10]  L. Krefting.  Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness. , 1991, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[11]  Elizabeth DePoy,et al.  Introduction to Research: Understanding and Applying Multiple Strategies , 1998 .

[12]  Fred A. Mael,et al.  Improving the Validity of the Impairment Evaluation Process: A Proposed Theoretical Framework , 2000, Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation.

[13]  Leon Straker,et al.  Reliability of work-related assessments. , 1999, Work.

[14]  L. Gibson,et al.  A review of functional capacity evaluation practice. , 1997, Work.

[15]  M. Neistadt.  Methods of assessing clients' priorities: a survey of adult physical dysfunction settings. , 1995, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[16]  P M King,et al.  A critical review of functional capacity evaluations. , 1998, Physical therapy.

[17]  L. Straker,et al.  A clinician's guide to work-related assessments: 2 - design problems. , 1998, Work.

[18]  S J Isernhagen,et al.  Guidelines for functional capacity evaluation of people with medical conditions. , 1993, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[19]  D. Lechner.  Functional Capacity Evaluation , 1998 .

[20]  Assessment practices of Irish occupational therapists: a study , 1998 .

[21]  Incorporation of ethnographic methods in occupational therapy assessment. , 1993, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[22]  Y. Bhambhani,et al.  Validity of the baltimore therapeutic equipment work simulator in the measurement of lifting endurance in healthy men. , 2001, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[23]  S R Hinderer,et al.  Measurement standards for interdisciplinary medical rehabilitation. , 1992, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.