Normative Values for a Functional Capacity Evaluation

Abstract

The normative values enable comparison of patients' performances to these values. If a patient's performance exceeds the lowest scores in his/her corresponding demand category, then the patient's capacity is very likely to be sufficient to meet the workload. Further, clinicians can make more precise return-to-work recommendations and set goals for rehabilitation programs. A comparison of the normative values can be useful to the fields of rehabilitation, occupational, and insurance medicine. Further research is needed to test the validity of the normative values with respect to workplace assessments and return-to-work recommendations.

Decline of Functional Capacity in Healthy Aging Workers

“…Functional Capacity Evaluations (FCEs) are evaluations of capacity of activities that are used to make recommendations for participation in work while considering the person's body functions and structures, environmental factors, personal factors, and health status. 9 In a previous study, 10 normative values for FCE were constructed in a sample of healthy working subjects and were directly related to the workload categories as provided by the DOT. A decline of FC with increasing age was assumed, but it is unclear how exactly this decline appears.…”

Normative kinematics of reaching and dexterity tasks: moving towards a quantitative baseline for Functional Capacity Evaluations (FCEs)

“…The mean capacity scores, in seconds or number of pins, had no sex differences (p = 0.1014-0.9649) and equaled or exceeded reported norms (Soer et al 2009) (Table 3).…”

“…For instance, for non-lifting tasks, observation criteria directs evaluators to classify functional abilities of a patient based on their deviation from normal (Trippolini et al 2014) but almost no description of normal movement is provided for comparison. Normative capacity data created from healthy populations is the gold standard for comparison of capacity outcomes of FCEs (Bhambhani et al 1994;Soer et al 2009) and kinematic alterations caused by injury are often determined by comparing to normal, healthy controls (Winter 1991;McClure et al 2006;Roy et al 2008;Lomond & Côté 2011), but the same information for comparison of movement strategies during FCE task performance is not available. Normal movement, used as a best measure to identify alterations in kinematics that could be caused by injury, must first be clearly documented and understood before deviations caused by injury or work intensity can be identified.…”

“…There are several types of tasks involved in the WWS that can be used to evaluate a wide range of work-related injuries, including a lifting evaluation with specific parameters, dexterity tasks or ambulation tasks (Isernhagen 1992), and normative capacity values exist for comparison of capacity outcomes (Soer et al 2009). Further, this system has comparatively low equipment requirements, allowing for evaluations that are more directly relatable to the workplace.…”

“…Interpretation of capacity outcomes is guided by normative capacity data or results from a job demands analysis (Soer et al 2009), but the interpretation of body mechanics and posture for many tasks lacks clear guidance. Possessing normative typical upper extremity kinematic data from FCE tasks enhances understanding of movement during these tasks, making the kinematic components of FCE's more straightforward to interpret and improves the consistency of the return to work evaluation process.…”