Attributes of excellence in work-related assessments

Issue title: SPECIAL SECTION: Distance Learning

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: 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 assessmentF_{36, 364}=6.54; p<0.001). There was a core of 7 attributes that showed no difference between assessments (accurate, compr ehensive, 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.

Keywords: functional capacity evaluation, workplace assessment, work-related assessment

Journal: Work, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 63-76, 2003