Skip to main content
Log in

Functional Self-Efficacy Beliefs Influence Functional Capacity Evaluation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives: The relationship between functional self-efficacy and Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) lift performance was examined in workers’ compensation claimants’ with low back pain. Methods: A cross-sectional design was used. Forty-two claimants with back pain and 38 subjects without back pain were enrolled. Subjects completed a measure of functional self-efficacy related specifically to lifting. Subjects also underwent FCE floor-to-waist, waist-to-overhead and horizontal lift testing. Potential confounders were also assessed including perceived disability, pain intensity, and self-rated health. Analysis included Pearson correlation and multivariable linear regression. Results: Higher functional self-efficacy beliefs were highly associated with better FCE performance on each of the lift items tested (r = 0.50–0.73). In multivariable analysis, the measure of functional self-efficacy remained independently associated with lift performance after controlling for potential confounders. Conclusion: Functional self-efficacy beliefs appear to influence FCE lift performance. Strategies for altering functional self-efficacy beliefs and their resulting impact on patient functional performance and outcomes should be examined.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lechner D, Roth D, Straaton K. Functional capacity evaluation in work disability. Work 1991;1:37–47.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Schonstein E, Kenny DT. The value of functional and work place assessments in achieving a timely return to work for workers with back pain. Work 2001;16:31–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Geisser ME, Robinson ME, Miller QL, et al. Psychosocial factors and functional capacity evaluation among persons with chronic pain. J Occup Rehab 2003;13:259–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gross DP, Battie MC. Factors influencing results of functional capacity evaluations in workers’ compensation claimants with low back pain. Phys Ther 2005;85:315–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rudy TE, Dieber SJ, Boston JR. Functional capacity assessment: Influence of behavioural and environmental factors. J Back Musculoskel Rehabil 1996;6:277–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hildebrandt J, Pfingsten M, Saur P, et al. Prediction of success from a multidisciplinary treatment program for chronic low back pain. Spine 1997;22:990–1001.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gibson L, Strong J. Assessment of psychosocial factors in functional capacity evaluation of clients with chronic back pain. Br J Occ Ther 1998;61:399–404.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lackner JM, Carosella AM, Feuerstein M. Pain expectancies, pain, and functional self-efficacy expectancies as determinants of disability in patients with chronic low back disorders. J Consult Clin Psychol 1996;64: 212–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lackner JM, Carosella AM. The relative influence of perceived pain control, anxiety, and functional self efficacy on spinal function among patients with chronic low back pain. Spine 1999;24:2254–60; discussion 60-1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pajares F, Johnson MJ. Self-efficacy beliefs and the writing performance of entering high school students. Psychol Schools 1996;33:163–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tait RC, Pollard CA, Margolis RB, et al. The Pain Disability Index: psychometric and validity data. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1987;68:438–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Estlander AM, Vanharanta H, Moneta GB, et al. Anthropometric variables, self-efficacy beliefs, and pain and disability ratings on the isokinetic performance of low back pain patients. Spine 1994;19:941–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. National occupational classification: Occupational descriptionsed: Human Resources Development Canada, 2001.

  14. Thomas S, Reading J, Shephard RJ. Revision of the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q). Can J Sport Sci 1992;17:338–45.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Isernhagen SJ. Functional capacity evaluation: rationale, procedure, utility of the kinesiophysical approach. J Occup Rehab 1992;2:157–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Isernhagen SJ, Hart DL, Matheson LM. Reliability of independent observer judgements of level of lift effort in a kinesiophysical Functional Capacity Evaluation. Work 1999;12:145–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gross DP, Battié MC. Reliability of safe maximum lifting determinations of a functional capacity evaluation. Phys Ther 2002;82:364–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Reneman MF, Dijkstra PU, Westmaas M, et al. Test-retest reliability of lifting and carrying in a 2-day functional capacity evaluation. J Occup Rehab 2002;12:269–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Brouwer S, Reneman MF, Dijkstra PU, et al. Test-retest reliability of the Isernhagen Work Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation in patients with chronic low back pain. J Occup Rehab 2003;13:207–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gross DP, Battie MC. Construct validity of a kinesiophysical functional capacity evaluation administered within a worker’s compensation environment. J Occup Rehabil 2003;13:287–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Reneman MF, Fokkens AS, Dijkstra PU, et al. Testing lifting capacity: validity of determining effort level by means of observation. Spine 2005;30:E40–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pollard CA. Preliminary validity study of the pain disability index. Percept Mot Skills 1984;59:974.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ware JE, Gandek B. The SF-36 Health Survey: development and use in mental health research at the IQLOA project. Int J Mental Health 1994;23:73.

    Google Scholar 

  24. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993;31:247–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Wittink H, Rogers W, Gascon C, et al. Relative contribution of mental health and exercise-related pain increment to treadmill test intolerance in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine 2001;26:2368–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Finch E, Brooks D, Stratford P, et al. Physical rehabilitation outcome measures: A guide to enhanced clinical decision making. 2nd ed. Toronto: Canadian Physiotherapy Association; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gross DP, Battié MC. The construct validity of a functional capacity evaluation administered within a workers’ compensation environment. J Occup Rehab 2003;13:287–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cutler RB, Fishbain DA, Steele-Rosomoff R, et al. Relationships between functional capacity measures and baseline psychological measures in chronic pain patients. J Occup Rehab 2003;13:249–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Glass GV, Hopkins KD. Statistical methods in education and psychology. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kleinbaum DG. Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. 3rd ed. Pacific Grove: Duxbury Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81:S15–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Feuerstein M, Beattie P. Biobehavioral factors affecting pain and disability in low back pain: mechanisms and assessment. Phys Ther 1995;75:267–80.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Piela CR, Hallenberg KK, Georghegan AE, et al. Prediction of functional capacity. Work 1996;6:107–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Brouwer S, Dijkstra PU, Stewart RE, et al. Comparing self-report, clinical examination and functional testing in the assessment of work-related limitations in patients with chronic low back pain. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:999–1005.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander K. Asante.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Asante, A.K., Brintnell, E.S. & Gross, D.P. Functional Self-Efficacy Beliefs Influence Functional Capacity Evaluation. J Occup Rehabil 17, 73–82 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-007-9068-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-007-9068-1

Keywords

Navigation