Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tools for Assessing Work Disability

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Handbook of Work Disability

Abstract

In current practice, the task of evaluating workers’ capacity to return to their pre-injury employment or other jobs and of evaluating the environmental and personal factors influencing the return-to-work process poses a daily challenge for health care professionals, insurers’ counselors, and employers. An examination of the scientific literature reveals that a wide range of work disability assessment tools are available, from self-administered questionnaires to observational tools. Choosing the right tools from all those available is no easy task. This book chapter presents an overview of work disability assessment tools, as well as criteria intended to guide users in their choice of the most appropriate instruments. It also provides details on ten instruments available for the purpose of screening for long-term work disability, assessing work ability, and assessing return-to-work obstacles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amick, B. C., III, Lerner, D., Rogers, W. H., Rooney, T., & Katz, J. N. (2000). A review of health-related work outcome measures and their uses, and recommended measures. Spine, 25(24), 3152–3160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Asmundsdottir, E. E. (2004). The Worker Role Interview: A powerful tool in Icelandic work rehabilitation. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 22(1), 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Biernacki, S. D. (1993). Reliability of the Worker Role Interview. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47(9), 797–803.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blank, L., Peters, J., Pickvance, S., Wilford, J., & Macdonald, E. (2008). A systematic review of the factors which predict return to work for people suffering episodes of poor mental health. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 18(1), 27–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boersma, K., & Linton, S. J. (2002). Early assessment of psychological factors: The Örebro Screening Questionnaire for Pain. In S. J. Linton (Ed.), New avenues for the prevention of chronic musculoskeletal pain and disability: Pain research and clinical management. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bombardier, C., Hayden, J., & Beaton, D. E. (2001). Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain: Outcome measures. Journal of Rheumatology, 28(2), 431–438.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, G. P., Fritz, J. M., Hunter, S. J., Thackeray, A., Delitto, A., & Erhard, R. E. (2006). Identifying subgroups of patients with acute/subacute “nonspecific” low back pain: Results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine, 31(6), 623–631.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer, S., Franche, R. L., Hogg-Johnson, S., Lee, H., Krause, N., & Shaw, W. S. (2011). Return-to-work self-efficacy: Development and validation of a scale in claimants with musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(2), 244–258.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Childs, J. D., & Cleland, J. A. (2006). Development and application of clinical prediction rules to improve decision making in physical therapist practice. Physical Therapy, 86(1), 122–131.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Copay, A. G., Subach, B. R., Glassman, S. D., Polly, D. W., Jr., & Schuler, T. C. (2007). Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods. The Spine Journal, 7(5), 541–546.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Corbière, M., Bonneville-Roussy, A., Franche, R. L., Coutu, M. F., Choinière, M., Durand, M. J., et al. (2011). Further validation of the BDI-II among people with chronic pain originating from musculoskeletal disorders. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 27(1), 62–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelius, L. R., van der Klink, J. J., Groothoff, J. W., & Brouwer, S. (2011). Prognostic factors of long term disability due to mental disorders: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(2), 259–274.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crook, J., & Moldofsky, H. (1994). The probability of recovery and return to work from work disability as a function of time. Quality of Life Research, 3(Suppl 1), S97–S109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Demers, L. M. (1992). Work hardening: A practical guide. Boston, MA: Andover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, K. M., Lewis, M., Mullis, R., Hill, J., Main, C. J., & Hay, E. M. (2005). STarTBack—Development of a low back pain screening tool. Rheumatology and Physical Medicine, 44, i85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duran-Arenas, L., Gallegos-Carrillo, K., Salinas-Escudero, G., & Martinez-Salgado, H. (2004). Towards a Mexican normative standard for measurement of the short format 36 health-related quality of life instrument. Salud Publica de Mexico, 46(4), 306–315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Durand, M. J., Corbière, M., Briand, C., Coutu, M. F., St-Arnaud, L., & Charpentier, N. (2010). Les facteurs reliés aux absences prolongées du travail en raison d’un trouble mental transitoire—Développement d’un outil de mesure. Montréal, QC: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durand, M. J., Loisel, P., Hong, Q. N., & Charpentier, N. (2002). Helping clinicians in work disability prevention: The work disability diagnosis interview. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 12(3), 191–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Durand, M. J., Vézina, N., Baril, R., Loisel, P., Richard, M. C., & Ngomo, S. (2009). Margin of manoeuvre indicators in the workplace during the rehabilitation process: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19(2), 194–202.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Durand, M. J., Vézina, N., Baril, R., Loisel, P., Richard, M. C., & Ngomo, S. (2011). Relationship between the margin of manoeuvre and the return to work after a long-term absence due to a musculoskeletal disorder: An exploratory study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33(13–14), 1245–1252.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ekbladh, E., Haglund, L., & Thorell, L. H. (2004). The Worker Role Interview—Preliminary data on the predictive validity of return to work of clients after an insurance medicine investigation. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 14(2), 131–141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fadyl, J. K., McPherson, K. M., Schluter, P. J., & Turner-Stokes, L. (2010). Factors contributing to work-ability for injured workers: Literature review and comparison with available measures. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(14), 1173–1183.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Falardeau, M., & Durand, M. J. (2002). Negotiation-centred versus client-centred: Which approach should be used? Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69(3), 135–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenger, K., & Kramer, J. M. (2007). Worker Role Interview: Testing the psychometric properties of the Icelandic version. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 14(3), 160–172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, G. S. (1999). Administration and application of the Worker Role Interview: Looking beyond functional capacity. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 12(1), 13–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, R., Davey, C., Buxton, M. J., & Jones, D. R. (1998). Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment, 2(14), 1–74.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, K., Braveman, B., Kielhofner, G., Ekbladh, E., Haglund, L., Fenger, K., et al. (2006). Psychometric properties of the Worker Role Interview. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 27(3), 313–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, N. E., Mullis, R., Young, J., Doyle, C., Lewis, M., Whitehurst, D., et al. (2010). IMPaCT Back study protocol. Implementation of subgrouping for targeted treatment systems for low back pain patients in primary care: A prospective population-based sequential comparison. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 11, 186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fougeyrollas, P. (1991). The handicap creation process. ICIDH International Network, 4, 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franche, R. L., Cullen, K., Clarke, J., Irvin, E., Sinclair, S., Frank, J., et al. (2005). Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: A systematic review of the quantitative literature. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 607–631.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Franche, R. L., & Krause, N. (2002). Readiness for return to work following injury or illness: Conceptualizing the interpersonal impact of health care, workplace, and insurance factors. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 12(4), 233–256.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, J., Sinclair, S., Hogg-Johnson, S., Shannon, H., Bombardier, C., Beaton, D., et al. (1998). Preventing disability from work-related low-back pain: New evidence gives new hope—If we can just get all the players onside. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 158(12), 1625–1631.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, J. M., Delitto, A., & Erhard, R. E. (2003). Comparison of classification-based physical therapy with therapy based on clinical practice guidelines for patients with acute low back pain: A randomized clinical trial. Spine, 28(13), 1363–1371.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, C. P., Melloh, M., Yelland, M., Burkett, B., & Roiko, A. (2011). Predictive ability of a modified Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire in an acute/subacute low back pain working population. European Spine Journal, 20(3), 449–457.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gouttebarge, V., Wind, H., Kuijer, P. P., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. (2004). Reliability and validity of Functional Capacity Evaluation methods: A systematic review with reference to Blankenship system, Ergos work simulator, Ergo-Kit and Isernhagen work system. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 77(8), 527–537.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, H., Adefolarin, A. T., & Howe, T. E. (2011). A systematic review of instruments for the assessment of work-related psychosocial factors (Blue Flags) in individuals with non-specific low back pain. Manual Therapy, 16(6), 531–543.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grimmer-Somers, K., Vipond, N., Kumar, S., & Hall, G. (2009). A review and critique of assessment instruments for patients with persistent pain. Journal of Pain Research, 2, 21–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, D. P. (2004). Measurement properties of performance-based assessment of functional capacity. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 14(3), 165–174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, D. P., & Battié, M. C. (2005). Functional capacity evaluation performance does not predict sustained return to work in claimants with chronic back pain. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 5(3), 285–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grotle, M., Vollestad, N. K., & Brox, J. I. (2006). Screening for yellow flags in first-time acute low back pain: Reliability and validity of a Norwegian version of the Acute Low Back Pain Screening Questionnaire. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 22(5), 458–467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gusi, N., Del Pozo-Cruz, B., Olivares, P. R., Hernandez-Mocholi, M., & Hill, J. C. (2011). The Spanish version of the “STarT Back Screening Tool” (SBST) in different subgroups. Atencion Primaria, 43(7), 356–361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haglund, L., Karlsson, G., Kielhofner, G., & Lai, J. S. (1997). Validity of the Swedish version of the Worker Role Interview. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 4(1–4), 23–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, M., Hiebert, R., Nordin, M., Goldsheyder, D., & Crane, M. (2001). The test-retest reliability of a new occupational risk factor questionnaire for outcome studies of low back pain. Applied Ergonomics, 32(1), 39–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hay, E. M., Dunn, K. M., Hill, J. C., Lewis, M., Mason, E. E., Konstantinou, K., et al. (2008). A randomised clinical trial of subgrouping and targeted treatment for low back pain compared with best current care. The STarT Back Trial Study Protocol. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 9, 58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heijbel, B., Josephson, M., Jensen, I., Stark, S., & Vingard, E. (2006). Return to work expectation predicts work in chronic musculoskeletal and behavioral health disorders: Prospective study with clinical implications. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 16(2), 173–184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. C., Dunn, K. M., Lewis, M., Mullis, R., Main, C. J., Foster, N. E., et al. (2008). A primary care back pain screening tool: Identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 59(5), 632–641.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. C., Dunn, K. M., Main, C. J., & Hay, E. M. (2010). Subgrouping low back pain: A comparison of the STarT Back Tool with the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire. European Journal of Pain, 14(1), 83–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. C., Dunn, K. M., Mullis, R., Lewis, M., Main, C. J., & Hay, E. M. (2006). Validation of a new low back pain subgrouping tool for primary care (The STarT Back Tool). Rheumatology, 45, i119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hlobil, H., Staal, J. B., Spoelstra, M., Ariens, G. A., Smid, T., & van Mechelen, W. (2005). Effectiveness of a return-to-work intervention for subacute low-back pain. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 31(4), 249–257.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hockings, R. L., McAuley, J. H., & Maher, C. G. (2008). A systematic review of the predictive ability of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire. Spine, 33(15), E494–E500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hopman, W. M., Towheed, T., Anastassiades, T., Tenenhouse, A., Poliquin, S., Berger, C., et al. (2000). Canadian normative data for the SF-36 health survey. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 163(3), 265–271.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, D. A., Dusoir, T. E., McDonough, S. M., Moore, A. P., Linton, S. J., & Baxter, G. D. (2000). Biopsychosocial screening questionnaire for patients with low back pain: Preliminary report of utility in physiotherapy practice in Northern Ireland. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 16(3), 214–228.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, E. (2006). Reliability and validity of functional capacity evaluation: An update. International Journal of Disability Management Research, 1(1), 135–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, E., & Straker, L. (1999a). Reliability of work-related assessments. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 13(2), 107–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes, E., & Straker, L. (1999b). Validity of work-related assessments. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 13(2), 125–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isernhagen, S. J. (1992). Functional capacity evaluation: Rationale, procedure, utility of the kinesiophysical approach. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 2(3), 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, C., & Mackenzie, L. (2009). Health professional’s perceptions and practices in relation to functional capacity evaluations: Results of a quantitative survey. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19(2), 203–211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkinson, C., Coulter, A., & Wright, L. (1993). Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: Normative data for adults of working age. British Medical Journal, 306(6890), 1437–1440.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnsson, A., Fornander, T., Rutqvist, L. E., & Olsson, M. (2011). Work status and life changes in the first year after breast cancer diagnosis. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 38(4), 337–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, V. (2009). Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire. The Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 55(2), 141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998). The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 322–355.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, N. A. S., Burton, A. K., Main, C., & Watson, P. (2009). Tackling musculoskeletal problems: A guide for clinic and workplace identifying obstacles using the psychosocial flags framework. London: TSO (The Stationery Office).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, N. A. S., Linton, S. J., & Main, C. J. (1997). Guide to assessing psychosocial yellow flags in acute low back pain: Risk factors for long-term disability and work loss. Wellington: Accident Rehabilitation & Compensation Insurance Corporation of New Zealand and the National Health Committee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kielhofner, G. (2008). A model of human occupation: Theory and application (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, P. M., Tuckwell, N., & Barrett, T. E. (1998). A critical review of functional capacity evaluations. Physical Therapy, 78(8), 852–866.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kirshner, B., & Guyatt, G. (1985). A methodological framework for assessing health indices. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 38(1), 27–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Koller, B., Niedermann, K., Klipstein, A., & Haugboelle, J. (2011). The psychometric properties of the German version of the new Worker Role Interview (WRI-G 10.0) in people with musculoskeletal disorders. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 40(4), 401–410.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, J. (1997). The independent medical examination and the functional capacity evaluation. Occupational Medicine, 12(3), 525–556.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, N., Frank, J. W., Dasinger, L. K., Sullivan, T. J., & Sinclair, S. J. (2001). Determinants of duration of disability and return-to-work after work-related injury and illness: Challenges for future research. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 40(4), 464–484.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, J. S., Haglund, L., & Kielhofner, G. (1999). Occupational Case Analysis Interview and Rating Scale. An examination of construct validity. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 13(4), 267–273.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Linddahl, I., Norrby, E., & Bellner, A. L. (2003). Construct validity of the instrument DOA: A dialogue about ability related to work. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 20(3), 215–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linton, S. J., & Boersma, K. (2003). Early identification of patients at risk of developing a persistent back problem: The predictive validity of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 19(2), 80–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Linton, S. J., & Hallden, K. (1998). Can we screen for problematic back pain? A screening questionnaire for predicting outcome in acute and subacute back pain. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 14(3), 209–215.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Linton, S. J., Nicholas, M., & MacDonald, S. (2011). Development of a short form of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire. Spine, 36(22), 1891–1895.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maher, C. G., & Grotle, M. (2009). Evaluation of the predictive validity of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 25(8), 666–670.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Main, C. J., Sullivan, M. J. L., & Watson, P. J. (2008). Risk identification and screening. In C. J. Main, M. J. L. Sullivan, & P. J. Watson (Eds.), Pain management. Practical applications of the biopsychosocial perspective in clinical and occupational settings (2nd ed., pp. 97–132). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margison, D. A., & French, D. J. (2007). Predicting treatment failure in the subacute injury phase using the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire: An observational prospective study in a workers’ compensation system. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 49(1), 59–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marhold, C., Linton, S. J., & Melin, L. (2002). Identification of obstacles for chronic pain patients to return to work: Evaluation of a questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 12(2), 65–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marois, E., & Durand, M. J. (2009). Does participation in interdisciplinary work rehabilitation programme influence return to work obstacles and predictive factors? Disability and Rehabilitation, 31(12), 994–1007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, E. M., Sluiter, J. K., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. (2005). Evaluation of effective return-to-work treatment programs for sick-listed patients with non-specific musculoskeletal complaints: A systematic review. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 78(7), 523–532.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Melloh, M., Elfering, A., Egli Presland, C., Roeder, C., Barz, T., Rolli Salathe, C., et al. (2009). Identification of prognostic factors for chronicity in patients with low back pain: A review of screening instruments. International Orthopaedics, 33(2), 301–313.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mininel, V. A. (2010). Adaptaçao transcultural do Work Disability Diagnosis Interview (WoDDI) para o contexto Brasileiro [thesis]. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo.

    Google Scholar 

  • MOHO Clearinghouse. (2011a). Translated MOHO assessments. Retrieved December 16, 2011, from http://www.uic.edu/depts/moho/mohorelatedrsrcs#TranslatedMOHOAssessments.

  • MOHO Clearinghouse. (2011b). Worker Role Interview (WRI) Version 10.0, 2005. Retrieved July 7, 2011, from http://www.uic.edu/depts/moho/assess/wri.html.

  • Nicholas, M. K., Linton, S. J., Watson, P. J., & Main, C. J. (2011). Early identification and management of psychological risk factors (“yellow flags”) in patients with low back pain: A reappraisal. Physical Therapy, 91(5), 737–753.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A., Gibson, L., McKenna, K., Gray, M., & Wielandt, T. (2011). Assessment of standing in Functional Capacity Evaluations: An exploration of methods used by a sample of occupational therapists. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 38(2), 145–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norrby, E., & Linddahl, I. (2006). Reliability of the instrument DOA: Dialogue about ability related to work. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 26(2), 131–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pransky, G. S., & Dempsey, P. G. (2004). Practical aspects of functional capacity evaluations. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 14(3), 217–229.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sandqvist, J. L., Björk, M. A., Gullberg, M. T., Henriksson, C. M., & Gerdle, B. U. C. (2009). Construct validity of the Assessment of Work Performance (AWP). Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 32(2), 211–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandqvist, J. L., Gullberg, M. T., Henriksson, C. M., & Gerdle, B. U. (2008). Content validity and utility of the Assessment of Work Performance (AWP). Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 30(4), 441–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandqvist, J. L., Tornquist, K. B., & Henriksson, C. M. (2006). Assessment of Work Performance (AWP)—Development of an instrument. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 26(4), 379–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattelmayer, M., Lorenz, T., Roder, C., & Hilfiker, R. (2012). Predictive value of the Acute Low Back Pain Screening Questionnaire and the Örebro Musculoskel-etal Pain Screening Questionnaire for persisting problems. European Spine Journal, 21(Suppl 6), S773–S784.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, I. Z., Stowell, A. W., Feuerstein, M., & Gatchel, R. J. (2007). Models of return to work for musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 17(2), 327–352.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, W. S., Reme, S. E., Linton, S. J., Huang, Y. H., & Pransky, G. (2011). Development of the return-to-work self-efficacy (RTWSE-19) questionnaire—Psychometric properties and predictive validity. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 37(2), 109–119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, W. S., van der Windt, D. A., Main, C. J., Loisel, P., & Linton, S. J. (2009). Early patient screening and intervention to address individual-level occupational factors (“blue flags”) in back disability. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19(1), 64–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. L., Cunningham, S., & Weinberg, R. (1986). The predictive validity of the functional capacities evaluation. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 40(8), 564–567.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sowden, G., Hill, J. C., Konstantinou, K., Khanna, M., Main, C. J., Salmon, P., et al. (2012). Subgrouping for targeted treatment in primary care for low back pain: The treatment system and clinical training programmes used in the IMPaCT Back study (ISRCTN 55174281). Family Practice, 29(1), 50–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spelten, E. R., Sprangers, M. A., & Verbeek, J. H. (2002). Factors reported to influence the return to work of cancer survivors: A literature review. Psycho-Oncology, 11(2), 124–131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spitzer, W., Leblanc, F., & Dupuis, M. (1987). Scientific approach to the assessment and management of activity-related spinal disorders: A monograph for clinicians. Report of the Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders. Spine, 12(Suppl), S1–S59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2008). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truchon, M., Schmouth, M. E., Cote, D., Fillion, L., Rossignol, M., & Durand, M. J. (2012). Absenteeism Screening Questionnaire (ASQ): A new tool for predicting long-term absenteeism among workers with low back pain. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22(1), 27–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomi, K., Ilmarinen, J., Jahkola, A., Katajarinne, L., & Tulkki, A. (1998). Work Ability Index. Helsinski: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Labor, & Employment and Training Administration. (1991). Revised Dictionary of Occupational Titles (4th ed., Vol. I–II). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velozo, C. A., Kielhofner, G., Gern, A., Lin, F. L., Azhar, F., Lai, J. S., et al. (1999). Worker Role Interview: Toward validation of a psychosocial work-related measure. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 9(3), 153–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddell, G. (2004). The back pain revolution (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Action in Work Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation (CAPRIT) and School of Rehabilitation, Université de Sherbrooke, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, bureau 200, Longueuil, QC, Canada, J4K 0A8

    Marie-José Durand Ph.D.

  2. Centre for Action in Work Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation (CAPRIT), 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, bureau 200, Longueuil, QC, Canada, J4K 0A8

    Quan Nha Hong M.Sc.

Authors
  1. Marie-José Durand Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Quan Nha Hong M.Sc.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-José Durand Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Toronto, College Street 155, Toronto, M5T 3M7, Ontario, Canada

    Patrick Loisel

  2. EMGO Institute for Health and Care Resea, Department of Public and Occupational He, VU University Medical Center, AMC-UMCG-UWV-VUmc, Amsterdam, NL-1081 BT, Netherlands

    Johannes R. Anema

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Durand, MJ., Hong, Q.N. (2013). Tools for Assessing Work Disability. In: Loisel, P., Anema, J. (eds) Handbook of Work Disability. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6214-9_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6214-9_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6213-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6214-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation