Reliability of the JobFit System Pre-Employment Functional Assessment Tool.

Functional capacity testing in the pre-employment or post-offer phase of recruitment is increasing in popularity as a preventative tool for controlling sprains and strains in the workplace. The purpose of this study is to determine the reliability of the JobFit System Pre-Employment Functional Assessment (PEFA) as a whole, or in parts, as a precursor for a validity study investigating the relationship between PEFA results and workplace injury rates and severity. A group of 28 healthy male coal mine employees were videotaped whilst they participated in a generic JobFit System Pre-Employment Functional Assessment (PEFA) including tests of aerobic physical fitness, balance, postural tolerances and material handling tolerances. Twenty participants performed a second trial. The test component scores and overall PEFA scores were compared between trials (test-retest, intra-rater) and assessors (inter-rater) to determine their reliability expressed in terms of ICC. Using an ICC score of > 0.75 as good and > 0.90 as excellent, in conjunction with percentage agreement a good to excellent reliability rating was allocated to the overall PEFA score, floor to bench lift, bench to overhead lift, bilateral carry and climbing. A moderate to good rating was recorded for bench to shoulder lifts, reaching forward, reaching overhead and stooping. A poor to moderate rating was recorded for squatting, balance and fitness tests. Test-retest scores were typically lower than intra-tester and inter-tester scores. ICC scores should be interpreted with consideration of their limitations and in conjunction with the actual test results.

[1]  L.N.H. Göeken,et al.  The reliability of determining effort level of lifting and carrying in a functional capacity evaluation. , 2002, Work.

[2]  C Tibiletti,et al.  A Novel Approach to Preemployment Worker Fitness Evaluations in a Material‐Handling Industry , 1994, Spine.

[3]  M C Battié,et al.  Preplacement worker testing and selection considerations. , 1987, Ergonomics.

[4]  S H Snook,et al.  Approaches to preplacement testing and selection of workers. , 1987, Ergonomics.

[5]  V. Mooney,et al.  Relationship of Lumbar Strength in Shipyard Workers to Workplace Injury Claims , 1996, Spine.

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

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

[9]  Leon Straker,et al.  Test-retest reliability on nine tasks of the Physical Work Performance Evaluation. , 2002, Work.

[10]  R. Mostardi,et al.  Isokinetic Lifting Strength and Occupational Injury: A Prospective Study , 1992, Spine.

[11]  Douglas P Gross,et al.  Reliability of safe maximum lifting determinations of a functional capacity evaluation. , 2002, Physical therapy.

[12]  J. K. Nelson,et al.  Research Methods in Physical Activity , 1990 .

[13]  L.N.H. Göeken,et al.  Test-Retest Reliability of Lifting and Carrying in a 2-day Functional Capacity Evaluation , 2002, Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation.

[14]  Jennifer Legge.  Pre-employment functional assessments as an effective tool for controlling work-related musculoskeletal disorders: A review , 2004 .

[15]  Leon Straker,et al.  Attributes of excellence in work-related assessments. , 2003, Work.

[16]  P. Dijkstra,et al.  Test–Retest Reliability of the Isernhagen Work Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation in Healthy Adults , 2004, Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation.