Abstract
The return to work process of an injured worker is dependent upon matching the physical abilities of the worker with physical demands of work tasks. Functional work movements and tasks are complex. Machines, equipment and isolated musculoskeletal testing have not produced data that is broad enough to project multi-faceted work ability. Functional capacity evaluations, which are sets of dynamic work tests, have seen a growing acceptance because of their whole-worker approach. The basic items of functional evaluations (lifting, carrying, bending, reaching, climbing) are compiled into a comprehensive test which results in information about the whole of work and overall ability of the worker. Projections into an eight-hour day and comparison to physical demands of the job are included in outcome of a functional capacity evaluation. The Kinesiophysical design approach also produces information on safety, compliance, movement characteristics and physical reasons behind work limitations. Utility of functional evaluation is exemplified when employers, and physicians use it as a basis for safe work return of the employee.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Ergonomics Program Management Guidelines for Meatpacking Plants, 1990.
EEOC: American's with Disabilities Act: Technical Assistance Manual. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., 1992.
EEOC: American's with Disabilities Act: Handbook. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, Washington, D.C., 1992.
Pizatella R, et al. The NIOSH strategy of reducign musculoskeletal injuries in work injury: Management and prevention, Rockville, MD: Aspen Publications, 1988, pp. 39–53.
Isernhagen S. Isolated testing, functional capacity evaluation and work tolerance testing. Industrial Rehabilitation Quarterly. Irvine, California: Roy Matheson & Associates, Spring 1991, pp. 7–17.
Miller M. Functional assessments.Work 1991; 1: 3.
Isernhagen S. The role of functional capacity assessment after rehabilitation. In Bullock M, ed.Ergonomics—The physiotherapist in the workplace. London: Churchill-Livingstone, 1990.
Key G. Work capacity analysis. In Scully M, Barnes M, eds.Physical therapy. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Lippincott Co., 1989, pp. 652–667.
Mayer T, et al. Objective assessment of spine functional following industrial injury: A prospective study with comparison group and one-year follow-up.Spine 1985, 10: 482–493.
Waddell G, McCulloch J, Jummel E, et al. Nonorganic physical signs in low back pain.Spine 1980; 5: 2.
Waddell G, Main C, Morris E, et al. Chronic low back pain, psychologic distress, and illness behavior.Spine 1984; 9: 2.
Isernhagen S. Functional capacity evaluation. In Isernhagen S, ed.Work Injury: Management and prevention. Gaithersburg, Maryland: Aspen Publishers, 1988, pp. 139–192.
Shultz-Johnson K. Evaluating the Workers Functional Capacities for Repetitive Work. Seminars in Occupation Medicine-Repetitive Motion Disorders, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1987, pp. 31–40.
Rodgers S. Job evaluation in worker fitness determination. In Himmelstein J, Pransky B, eds.Worker fitness and risk evaluation. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Hanley & Belfus, 1988, pp. 219–240.
Bullock M. The development of optimum worker-task relationships. In Bullock M, ed.Ergonomics: The physiotherapist in the workplace. London: Churchill Livingstone, 1990, pp. 13–50.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Isernhagen, S.J. Functional capacity evaluation: Rationale, procedure, utility of the kinesiophysical approach. J Occup Rehab 2, 157–168 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01077187
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01077187