Strategies used when conducting work-related assessments

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Innes, Ev | Straker, Leon

Affiliations: School of Occupation & Leisure Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, PO Box 170, Lidcombe NSW 1825, Australia. Tel.: +61 2 9351 9209; Fax: +61 2 9351 9197; E-mail: [email protected] | School of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth WA 6845, Australia. Tel.: +61 8 9266 3634; Fax: +61 8 9266 3699; E-mail: [email protected]

Note: [] Corresponding author

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: continuous quality improvement, functional capacity evaluation, workplace assessment, work-related assessment

Journal: Work, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 149-165, 2002