Ev Innes1, Leon Straker. 1. School of Occupation and Leisure Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney. P.O. Box 170, Lidcombe, NSW 1825, Australia.
Abstract
Insufficient evidence of the reliability of work-related assessments is a major concern in this area of practice. Despite this concern there has been ongoing development of new assessments, while existing assessments have been revised, modified and updated and others are no longer used or available. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the extent and quality of evidence for the reliability of work-related assessments. STUDY DESIGN: This study examined available literature and sources in order to review the extent which reliability has been established for 28 work-related assessments. RESULTS: The levels of evidence and reliability are presented for each assessment. This indicates that a number of commercially available work-related assessments have insufficient evidence of reliability. For the limited number of work-related assessments with an adequate level of evidence on which to judge their reliability, most demonstrate a moderate to good level. Few assessments, however, have demonstrated levels of reliability sufficient for clinical (and legal) purposes. CONCLUSION: With this study clinicians will be able to examine their options with regard to the reliability of the assessments they choose to use. Interpretation of changes in test results can be considered in the light of the evidence for the reliability of the instrument used.
Insufficient evidence of the reliability of work-related assessments is a major concern in this area of practice. Despite this concern there has been ongoing development of new assessments, while existing assessments have been revised, modified and updated and others are no longer used or available. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the extent and quality of evidence for the reliability of work-related assessments. STUDY DESIGN: This study examined available literature and sources in order to review the extent which reliability has been established for 28 work-related assessments. RESULTS: The levels of evidence and reliability are presented for each assessment. This indicates that a number of commercially available work-related assessments have insufficient evidence of reliability. For the limited number of work-related assessments with an adequate level of evidence on which to judge their reliability, most demonstrate a moderate to good level. Few assessments, however, have demonstrated levels of reliability sufficient for clinical (and legal) purposes. CONCLUSION: With this study clinicians will be able to examine their options with regard to the reliability of the assessments they choose to use. Interpretation of changes in test results can be considered in the light of the evidence for the reliability of the instrument used.
Authors: Vincent Gouttebarge; Haije Wind; P Paul F M Kuijer; Monique H W Frings-Dresen Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2004-11-09 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Haije Wind; Vincent Gouttebarge; P Paul F M Kuijer; Judith K Sluiter; Monique H W Frings-Dresen Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2006-01-14 Impact factor: 3.015