Search for other papers by E. Randolph Soo Hoo in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Stephen L. Demeter in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Referring agents may ask independent medical evaluators if the examinee can return to work in either a normal or a restricted capacity; similarly, employers may ask external parties to conduct this type of assessment before a hire or after an injury. Functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) are used to measure agility and strength, but they have limitations and use technical jargon or concepts that can be confusing. This article clarifies key terms and concepts related to FCEs. The basic approach to a job analysis is to collect information about the job using a variety of methods, analyze the data, and summarize the data to determine specific factors required for the job. No single, optimal job analysis or validation method is applicable to every work situation or company, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers technical standards for each type of validity study. FCEs are a systematic method of measuring an individual's ability to perform various activities, and results are matched to descriptions of specific work-related tasks. Results of physical abilities/agilities tests are reported as “matching” or “not matching” job demands or “pass” or “fail” meeting job criteria. Individuals who fail an employment physical agility test often challenge the results on the basis that the test was poorly conducted, that the test protocol was not reflective of the job, or that levels for successful completion were inappropriate.
- Abstract
- Background
- Evaluation of the Candidate/Employee
- Administrable Aspects
- Should Post-Offer/Pre-Placement Tests or Return-to-Work Tests be Done?
- Where Should a Physical Agility Test be in the Employment Process?
- Where are Examinations Performed?
- What if a Vendor Ceases to Exist or if the Company Wants to use a Different Vendor?
- Can Other Studies be Used to Establish Physical Abilities/Agilities Test Criteria?
- Are There Challenges or Protests to the Process?
- What is Adverse Impact?
- Who is Ultimately Responsible for the Results?
- References
-
1.
McCormick, E.J. (1979). Job analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Amacom
-
2.
US Department of Labor. Handbook for Analyzing Jobs. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1972.
-
3.
US Department of Labor. The Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1991.
-
4.
Uniform Guidelines for Employee Selection Procedures (1978). Federal Register, 29 CFR IV, Part 1607, July 1, 1991 edition.
-
5.
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A Technical Assistance Manual on the Employment Provisions (Title I) of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1992.
-
6.
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1992). A Technical Assistance Manual on the Employment Provisions (Title I) of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.
-
7.
American Psychological Association. Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures, 4th ed. Bowling Green, OH: American Psychological Association, Division of the Industrial-Organizational Psychology Association; 2003.
-
8.
Matheson, LN. Disability Evaluation, 2nd ed. Chicago: AMA Press; 2003
-
9.
Schwerha JJ. Is functional capacity evaluation useful in preplacement examinations? JOEM 2010; 52:5.
-
10.
Gallagher S, Moore JS, Stobbe TJ. Physical Strength Assessment in Ergonomics. American Industrial Hygiene Association; 1998.
-
11.
Keyserling WM, Herrin, GD, Chaffin DB. Isometric strength: testing as a means of controlling medical incidents on strenuous jobs. J Occup Med. 1980; 22: 5i.
-
12.
Chaffin DB, Andersson GBJ. Occupational Biomechanics, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1991, pp. 105–106.
-
13.
Sean Gallagher, J. Steven Moore, Terrence J. Stobbe Physical Strength Assessment in Ergonomics by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, Copyright 1998.
-
14.
Gallagher Sean, Moore J. Steven, Terrence J. Stobbe Physical Strength Assessment in Ergonomics by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, Copyright 1998
-
15.
Kroemer KHE. Testing individual capability to lift material: repeatability of a dynamic test compared with static testing. J Safety Res. 1985; 16(1):1–7.
-
16.
Mayer TG, Barnes D, Kishino ND, et al.Progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation—I. A standardized protocol and normative database. Spine. 1988; 13(8):993–997.
-
17.
Stevens SS. On the psychophysical law. Psychol Rev. 1957; 64:153–181.
-
18.
Jones LA. Perception of force and weight: theory and research. Psychol Bull. 1986; 100(1):29–42.
-
19.
Snook SH. Psychophysical acceptability as a constraint in manual working capacity. Ergonomics. 1985; 28(1):331–335.
-
20.
Chaffin, D.B., and G.B.J. Andersson: Occupational Biomechanics, 2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1991. pp. 111–112.
-
21.
Snook SH, Campanelli RA, Hart JW. A study of three preventive approaches to low back injury. J Occup Med. 1978; 20(7):478–481.
-
22.
Ayoub MM, Selan JL, Liles DH. An ergonomics approach for the design of manual materials-handling tasks. Hum Factors. 1983; 25(5):507–515.
-
23.
Herrin GD, Jaraiedi M, Anderson CK. Prediction of overexertion injuries using biomechanical and psychophysical models. J Am Ind Hyg Assoc. 1986; 47(6):322–330.
-
25.
Waters et al, editors. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Applications Manual for the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation. Cincinnati, OH: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1994.
-
26.
Harbin G, Olson J. Post-offer, pre-placement testing in industry. Am J Ind Med. 2005; 47:296–307.
-
27.
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1992). A Technical Assistance Manual on the Employment Provisions (Title I) of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.
-
28.
“Uniform Guidelines for Employee Selection Procedures (1978).” Federal Register, 29 CFR IV, Part 1607, July 1, 1991 edition.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1438 | 1438 | 60 |
| Full Text Views | 26 | 26 | 0 |
| PDF Downloads | 0 | 0 | 0 |
