Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
Published in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 4/2006

01-12-2006 | Original Paper

A comparison of two lifting assessment approaches in patients with chronic low back pain

Authors: Remko Soer, Bas J. J. Poels, Jan H. B. Geertzen, Michiel F. Reneman

Published in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation | Issue 4/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

The Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation (PILE) and the lifting test of the WorkWell Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation (WWS) are well known as lifting performance tests. The objective of this study was to study whether the PILE and the WWS can be used interchangeably in patients with Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) and to explore whether psychosocial variables can explain possible differences. Methods: 53 Patients (32 men and 21 women) with CLBP were tested twice in a counter balanced design. Pearson Correlation Coefficient of r > 0.75 and non-significant differences on two-tailed t tests were considered as good comparability. Results: Pearson Correlation Coefficient was 0.75 (p < 0.01). Lifting performance on the WWS was a mean of 6.0 kg higher compared to the PILE (p < 0.01). The difference between the PILE and the WWS was unrelated to psychological variables. Conclusion: It can be concluded that the PILE and the WWS cannot be used interchangeably. Psychosocial variables cannot explain the differences between both tests.
Literature
1.
Hansson E, Hansson T, Jonsson R. Predictors for work ability and disability in men and women with low-back or neck problems. Eur Spine J 2005.
2.
Gross DP, Battie MC. Reliability of safe maximum lifting determinations of a functional capacity evaluation. Phys Ther 2002;82(4):364–71.PubMed
3.
Johnson LJ. The kinesiophysical approach matches worker and employer needs. Isernhagen SJ. The comprehensive guide to work injury management. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers; 1995. p. 399–409.
4.
Snook SH, Ciriello VM. The design of manual handling tasks: revised tables of maximum acceptable weights and forces. Ergonomics 1991;34(9):1197–213.PubMed
5.
Khalil TM, Goldberg ML, Asfour SS, Moty EA, Rosomoff RS, Rosomoff HL. Acceptable maximum effort (AME). A psychophysical measure of strength in back pain patients. Spine 1987;12(4):372–6.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Isernhagen SJ. Work injury, management and prevention. Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA: Aspen publishers, inc; 1988.
7.
Mayer TG, Barnes D, Kishino ND, Nichols G, Gatchel RJ, Mayer H, Mooney V. Progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation. I. A standardized protocol and normative database. Spine 1988;13(9):993–7.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Isernhagen SJ. Functional capacity evaluation: rationale, procedure, utility of the kinesiophysical appproach. J Occup Rehabil 1992;2(3):157–68.CrossRef
9.
IJmker S, Gerrits EH, Reneman MF. Upper lifting performance of healthy young adults in functional capacity evaluations: a comparison of two protocols. J Occup Rehabil 2003;13(4):297–305.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Geisser ME, Robinson ME, Miller QL, Bade SM. Psychosocial factors and functional capacity evaluation among persons with chronic pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2003;13(4):259–76.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Grotle M, Vollestad NK, Veierod MB, Brox JI. Fear-avoidance beliefs and distress in relation to disability in acute and chronic low back pain. Pain 2004;112(3):343–52.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Vlaeyen JW, Kole-Snijders AM, Boeren RG, van Eek H. Fear of movement/(Re)injury in chronic low back pain and its relation to behavioral performance. Pain 1995;62(3):363–72.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main CJ. A fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain 1993;52(2):157–68.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Pfingsten M, Leibing E, Harter W, Kroner-Herwig B, Hempel D, Kronshage U, Hildebrandt J. Fear-avoidance behavior and anticipation of pain in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled study. Pain Med 2001;2(4):259–66.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Lygren H, Dragesund T, Joensen J, Ask T, Moe-Nilssen R. Test-retest reliability of the progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation (PILE). Spine 2005;30(9):1070–4.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Brouwer S, Reneman MF, Dijkstra PU, Groothoff JW, Schellekens JM, Goeken LN. Test-retest reliability of the isernhagen work systems functional capacity evaluation in patients with chronic low back pain. J Occup Rehabil 2003;13(4):207–18.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Crombez G, Vlaeyen JW, Heuts PH, Lysens R. Pain-related fear is more disabling than pain itself: evidence on the role of pain-related fear in chronic back pain disability. Pain 1999;80(1–2):329–39.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Swinkels-Meewisse EJ, Swinkels RA, Verbeek AL, Vlaeyen JW, Oostendorp RA. Psychometric properties of the tampa scale for kinesiophobia and the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire in acute low back pain. Man Ther 2003;8(1):29–36.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Arrindel WA, Ettema JHM. Symptom Checklist-90. Handleiding bij een multidimensionele psychopathologie-indicator. Lisse The Netherlands: Swets test publishers; 2003.
20.
Schreurs PJG, van de Willige G, Brosschot JF, Tellegen B, Graus GMS. De Utrechtse Coping lijst: UCL. revised version ed. Utrecht: Swets test publishers; 1993.(Vakgroep klinische psychologie en Gezondheidspsychologie).
21.
Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine 2000;25(24):3115–24.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Brouwer S, Kuijer W, Dijkstra PU, Goeken LN, Groothoff JW, Geertzen JH. Reliability and Stability of the roland morris disability questionnaire: intra class correlation and limits of agreement. Disabil Rehabil 2004;26(3):162–5.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Innes E, Straker L. Validity of work-related assessments. Work 1999;13(2):125–52.PubMed
24.
Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research; applications to practice. 2 edn. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 2000.(vol. 23).
25.
U.S. Department of Labor, The revised handbook for analyzing jobs. 4 edn. JIST Works, inc., Indianapolis; 1991.
26.
Genaidy AM, Asfour SS, Mital A, Tritar M. Psychophysical capacity modeling in frequent manual materials handling activities. Hum Factors 1988;30(3):319–37.PubMed
27.
Karwowski W, Shumate C, Yates JW, Pongpatana N. Discriminability of Load Heaviness: Implications for the psychophysical approach to manual lifting. Ergonomics 1992;35(7–8):729–44.PubMed
28.
Hodselmans AP, Jaegers SM, Goeken LN. Short-term outcomes of a back school program for chronic low back pain. Arch. Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82(8):1099–105.CrossRef
29.
Reneman MF, kool J, Oesch P, Geertzen JHB, Battie MC, Gross DP. Material handling performance of patients with chronic low back pain during functional capacity evaluation: a comparison between three countries. accepted Disabil. Rehabil. 2006.
Metadata
Title
A comparison of two lifting assessment approaches in patients with chronic low back pain
Authors
Remko Soer
Bas J. J. Poels
Jan H. B. Geertzen
Michiel F. Reneman
Publication date
01-12-2006
Published in
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation / Issue 4/2006
Print ISSN: 1053-0487
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3688
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-006-9055-y

Other articles of this Issue 4/2006

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 4/2006 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Incorporating Injured Employee Outcomes into Physical and Occupational Therapists’ Practice: A Controlled Trial of the Worker-Based Outcomes Assessment System

Original Paper

The Effect of Alternate Style Keyboards on Severity of Symptoms and Functional Status of Individuals with Work Related Upper Extremity Disorders

Original Paper

The psychology of injured workers: Health and cost of vocational rehabilitation

Original Paper

Effects of a Proximity-Sensing Feedback Chair on Head, Shoulder, and Trunk Postures When Working at a Visual Display Terminal

Original Paper

The effect of a “training on work readiness” program for workers with musculoskeletal injuries: A randomized control trial (RCT) study

Original Paper

Economic Evaluation of a Multi-Stage Return to Work Program for Workers on Sick-Leave Due to Low Back Pain