title: Matching physical work demands with functional capacity in healthy workers: can it be more efficient?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To determine if functional capacity (FC) and physical work demands can be matched and to determine the validity of normative values for FC related to physical work demands as a screening instrument for work ability.
  
  
  METHODS
  Forty healthy working subjects were included in this study. Subjects were categorized into four physical work demand categories (sedentary, light, moderate and heavy). FC was tested with a standardized Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) following the WorkWell Protocol and physical work demands were determined with an onsite Work Load Assessment (WLA) according to the Task Recording and Analyses on Computer (TRAC) method. Physical work demands were compared to FC and normative values derived from previous research.
  
  
  RESULTS
  88% of the subjects scored higher on FCE than observed during WLA. The tenth percentile of normative values appeared valid in 98% for sedentary/light work for the subjects tested in this study. For moderate or heavy work, the thirtieth percentile of normative values appeared valid in 78% of all cases.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Functional capacity and physical work demands can be matched in most instances, but exceptions should be kept in mind with regards to professions classified as moderate or heavy physical work, especially concerning lifting high. Normative values may be considered as an additional screening tool for balancing workload and capacity. It is recommended to further validate normative values in a broader and more extensive working population.
authors.affiliation: University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Rehabilitation, The Netherlands; University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen Spine Center, The Netherlands; Expertise Center of Health, Social Care and Technology, Saxion Universities of Applied Sciences, Enschede, The Netherlands. Electronic address: r.soer@saxion.nl.
authors.forename: Remko
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Soer
authors.affiliation: Center for Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; Xsens Technologies B.V., Pantheon 6a, 7521 PR Enschede, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Niek
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Hollak
authors.affiliation: University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Rehabilitation, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Marieke
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Deijs
authors.affiliation: University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Rehabilitation, The Netherlands; Center for Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Lucas H
authors.initials: LH
authors.lastname: van der Woude
authors.affiliation: University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Rehabilitation, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Michiel F
authors.initials: MF
authors.lastname: Reneman
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D017598:Efficiency, Organizational; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009790:Occupations / Q000592:standards; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis; D014937:Work / Q000502:physiology; D014938:Work Capacity Evaluation; D016526:Workload / Q000592:standards; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: Normative values; Physical workload; Work ability