Reliability of Safe Maximum Lifting Determinations of a Functional Capacity Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) are measurement tools used in predicting readiness to return to work following injury. The interrater and test-retest reliability of determinations of maximal safe lifting during kinesiophysical FCEs were examined in a sample of people who were off work and receiving workers' compensation. SUBJECTS: Twenty-eight subjects with low back pain who had plateaued with treatment were enrolled. Five occupational therapists, trained and experienced in kinesiophysical methods, conducted testing. METHODS: A repeated-measures design was used, with raters testing subjects simultaneously, yet independently. Subjects were rated on 2 occasions, separated by 2 to 4 days. Analyses included intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The ICC values for interrater reliability ranged from.95 to.98. Test-retest values ranged from.78 to.94. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Inconsistencies in subjects' performance across sessions were the greatest source of FCE measurement variability. Overall, however, test-retest reliability was good and interrater reliability was excellent.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".