Comparative Analysis of AMA Guides Ratings by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Editions *
Christopher R. Brigham
Search for other papers by Christopher R. Brigham in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Craig Uejo
Search for other papers by Craig Uejo in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Aimee McEntire
Search for other papers by Aimee McEntire in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Leslie Dilbeck
Search for other papers by Leslie Dilbeck in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

In December 2007, the American Medical Association published the sixth edition of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), following previous editions published in 2000 (fifth edition) and 1993 (fourth edition). To assess the effects of changes in whole person impairment ratings across editions, the authors selected 200 cases of whole person impairment and reevaluated each according to criteria in the three editions. Interrater reliability was confirmed when an independent reviewer checked 15% of the cases and found agreement within 1% in all but one of the thirty cases checked. Tables and figures in the article compare average whole person impairment in terms of sixth edition chapters; by edition; and by category (nonsurgical vs surgical intervention) and edition. On the basis of the sample and their comparisons, the authors conclude that the effect for patients based on their diagnostic impairment is small, and greater difference is seen for results obtained using the fifth edition compared with the fourth edition. The observed changes were expected and result primarily from the following: surgery and therapy should improve function and thus should not routinely increase impairment; there are improved functional outcomes for carpal tunnel syndrome and total joint replacement; and certain common conditions that resulted in functional deficits but no ratable impairment in previous editions now should be ratable. The study showed excellent interrater reliability with sixth edition ratings, which was an important goal for the new edition.

  • 1.

    American Medical Association. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Sixth Edition. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    American Medical Association. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Fourth Edition. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 1993.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    American Medical Association. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Fifth Edition. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2000.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001. http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Burd JG. The educated guess: doctors and permanent partial disability percentage. J Tenn Med Assoc. 1980;783:44l.

  • 6.

    Clark WL, Haldeman S, Johnson P, et al.Back impairment and disability determination: another attempt at objective, reliable rating. Spine. 1988;13: 332-341.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Hinderer SR, Rondinelli RD, Katz RT. Measurement issues in impairment rating and disability evaluation. In: Rondinelli RD, Katz RT, eds. Impairment Rating and Disability Evaluation. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Co; 2000:35-52.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Pryor ES. Flawed promises: critical evaluation of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Harvard Law Rev. 1990;103:964-976.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Rondinelli RD. Duncan PW. The concepts of impairment and disability. In: Rondinelli RD, Katz RT, eds. Impairment Rating and Disability Evaluation. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Co; 2000:17-33.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Rondinelli RD, Dunn W, Hassanein KM, et al.Simulation of hand impairments: effects on upper extremity function and implications toward medical impairment rating and disability determination. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:1358-1563.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Rondinelli RD, Katz RT. Merits and shortcomings of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th edition: a physiatric perspective. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2002;13:355-370.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Spieler EA, Barth PS, Burton JF, et al.Recommendations to guide revision of the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. JAMA. 2000;283(4):519-523.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Brigham CR, Uejo C, Dilbeck L, Walker P. Errors in impairment rating: challenges and opportunities. J Workers Compensation. 2006;15(4):19-42.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 202 202 22
Full Text Views 48 48 0
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
Save