Affiliations: Department of Occupational Therapy, School of Health
and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072,
Australia. Tel.: +61 7 3365 2652; Fax: +61 7 3365 1622; E-mail:
j.strong@admin.uq.edu.au
Note: [] Corresponding author
Abstract: This study assessed the item validity of 15 of the physical demands
from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), as evaluated in a new
approach to functional capacity evaluation (FCE) for clients with chronic back
pain, the Gibson Approach to FCE (GAPP FCE). Fifty-two occupational therapists
were sent the specifications of the items in the GAPP FCE procedures and were
asked to rate the items in terms of item-objective congruence, relevance and
difficulty. A response rate of 59.2% was obtained. The majority of the
therapists agreed that most of the items were congruent with the objectives
based on the definition of the physical demands from the DOT. The items
evaluating Balancing and Pushing and Pulling had the lowest item-objective
congruence. The evaluation of Balancing and the Lifting, Carrying and Pushing
and Pulling of loads greater than light-medium weight (10–16 kg) were not
considered significantly relevant. Concerns were raised about the difficulty
and safety of the evaluation of Lifting, Carrying and Pushing and Pulling with
clients with chronic back pain, particularly if the therapist evaluates the
manual handling of medium to heavy loads. These results may have implications
for other FCEs, particularly those which are based on the DOT, or when
assessing clients with chronic back pain.
