Literature DB >> 12708105

The effect of order of testing in functional performance in persons with and without chronic back pain.

Andrew J Haig1, Michael E Geisser, Carrie Nicholson, Ebony Parker, Karen Yamakawa, Derrick Montomery, Ethan Booker.   

Abstract

Batteries of individually standardized physical and functional tests are commonly used to assess persons with chronic back pain disability. The order of testing may affect performance on later tests. One hundred and fifty patients with > 3 months of back pain disability underwent a multidisciplinary Spine Team Assessment involving Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Pain Psychology, and Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor assessments at a university spine clinic. Seventeen back healthy volunteers performed the physical component of the assessment. For the volunteers the order of testing was randomized to OT tests first or PT test first, with 0.5 h rest between the tests. For patients the order of testing was arbitrarily set by an alternating schedule, with 1 h psychological testing between the two components. For both the patients and volunteers, among the 14 test components, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in performance with order of testing. This held true for the subgroup of patients who put out good cardiac effort. Volunteers performed better than patients on all individual tests (p < 0.001). Results suggest that the order of physical testing during a Spine Team Assessment does not affect test performance either in chronic low back disabled patients or in volunteers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12708105     DOI: 10.1023/a:1022504032299

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Occup Rehabil        ISSN: 1053-0487


  9 in total

Review 1.  The functional capacity evaluation: measuring maximal work abilities.

Authors:  A K Tramposh
Journal:  Occup Med       Date:  1992 Jan-Mar

Review 2.  Functional capacity evaluation.

Authors:  J A Harten
Journal:  Occup Med       Date:  1998 Jan-Mar

Review 3.  The independent medical examination and the functional capacity evaluation.

Authors:  J Kraus
Journal:  Occup Med       Date:  1997 Jul-Sep

4.  Progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation. I. A standardized protocol and normative database.

Authors:  T G Mayer; D Barnes; N D Kishino; G Nichols; R J Gatchel; H Mayer; V Mooney
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Guidelines for functional capacity evaluation of people with medical conditions.

Authors:  D L Hart; S J Isernhagen; L N Matheson
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 4.751

6.  The impact of spinal problems on the health status of patients: have we underestimated the effect?

Authors:  J C Fanuele; N J Birkmeyer; W A Abdu; T D Tosteson; J N Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Functional capacity evaluations in persons with spinal disorders: predicting poor outcomes on the Functional Assessment Screening Test (FAST).

Authors:  C M Ruan; A J Haig; M E Geisser; K Yamakawa; R L Buchholz
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2001-06

8.  Physical performance: differences in men and women with and without low back pain.

Authors:  D M Novy; M J Simmonds; S L Olson; C E Lee; S C Jones
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.966

9.  Objective assessment of spine function following industrial injury. A prospective study with comparison group and one-year follow-up.

Authors:  T G Mayer; R J Gatchel; N Kishino; J Keeley; P Capra; H Mayer; J Barnett; V Mooney
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1985 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.468

  9 in total
  1 in total

1.  Reliability of upper extremity tests measured by the Ergos work simulator: a pilot study.

Authors:  Juliette M Boadella; Judith K Sluiter; Monique H Frings-Dresen
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2003-12
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.