Strategies used when conducting work-related assessments.

UNLABELLED The attributes of work-related assessments have been found to differ between types of assessment. This suggests that there may also be strategies that are more appropriately used with some assessments than with others. OBJECTIVES The aims of this study were to determine: the reported frequency with which strategies were actually and ideally used when conducting each of three types of work-related assessment (workplace assessment (WPA); functional capacity evaluation (job) (FCEJ); functional capacity evaluation (no job) (FCENJ)); if there were differences between the strategies used with each type of work-related assessment; and the barriers, if any, that existed to achieving ideal practice when conducting work-related assessments. 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 MANOVAs revealed there were significant differences between the 3 forms of work-related assessments for the strategies actually used F 78,40=3.47; p<0.001) and ideally used (F 78,24 =2.36; p=0.010). For both actually and ideally used strategies there was a core of strategies with no significant difference and shared by all forms of assessment. Several patterns of difference emerged. The largest group was where WPAs were different from both forms of FCE. A smaller group of strategies showed a difference between FCENJs and both WPAs and FCEJs. There were also some strategies that were different for all forms of assessment. Reliability analysis revealed 7 constructs which reflected the process of conducting work-related assessments. The major barrier to achieving ideal practice was time/cost. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that there were significant differences between 3 forms of work-related assessments (WPAs, FCEJs & FCENJs) for the reported actual and ideal use of strategies. These strategies were associated with more qualitative or quantitative forms of assessment. This appeared to represent a continuum of work-related assessments that ranged from WPAs demonstrating strategies most associated with qualitative approaches to FCENJs demonstrating strategies most associated with quantitative approaches, with FCEJs between the two. By using strategies appropriate to each type of assessment, clinicians will be able to enhance the excellence of their practice.

[1]  Laura M. Krefting,et al.  Work Evaluation: Choosing a Commercial System , 1985 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11]  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.

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

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

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

[15]  L. Straker,et al.  A clinician's guide to work-related assessments: 3 - Administration and interpretation problems. , 1998, Work.

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

[17]  M. Law.  Measurement in Occupational Therapy: Scientific Criteria for Evaluation , 1987 .

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