Test-Retest Reliability of the GAPP Functional Capacity Evaluation in Healthy Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional capacity evaluations are commonly used in work rehabilitation practice to assess a person's capacity to perform work-related activities. PURPOSE: This study examined the test-retest reliability of participants' performance and administrator ratings using the Gibson Approach to Functional Capacity Evaluation (GAPP FCE). METHODS: Forty-eight healthy adults were evaluated twice on 12 recommended core items of the GAPP FCE and rated for overall performance. FINDINGS: The ICCs and 95% CIs for the Physical Level of Work and Alternative Physical Level of Work Ratings were 0.93 (0.87-0.96) and 0.86 (0.72-0.93) respectively. The ICCs for the core item-level ratings ranged from 0.15 to 0.94, and the ICCs for the actual loads handled in the manual handling items ranged from 0.88 to 0.95. IMPLICATIONS: The stability of an overall physical level of work rating shows potential for use in functional capacity evaluation practice and research. Further research is needed to investigate other measurement properties of the GAPP FCE using populations with injury or disability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".