| Name of the Instrument/Tool | The Work Disability Physical Functional Assessment Battery (WD-FAB) |
| First Description |
Marfeo EE, Haley SM, Jette AM, et al. A conceptual foundation for measures of physical function and behavioral health function for Social Security work disability evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013;94:1645–52.e2. |
| Year | 2013 |
| Domains | |
| Concept of constructs | Functional status |
| Population/Disease | Generic |
| Originally developed for | --- |
| Other rheumatic diseases where can be applied (only if validated) |
--- |
| Additional population with no rheumatic diseases |
No |
| Language: Originally published in | English |
| Available in Language | German |
| REFERENCE IDENTIFICATION | |
| Author/s | Elizabeth E.Marfeo PhD, MPH, Stephen M.Haley PT, PhD, Alan M.JettePT, PhD, Susan V.Eisen PhD, Pengsheng Ni MD, MPH, KaraBogusz BA, MarkMeterko PhD, Christine M.McDonough PT, Ph, LeightonChan MD, MPH, Diane E.Brandt PT, MS, PhD, Elizabeth K.Rasch PT, PhD |
| Title | A conceptual foundation for measures of physical function and behavioral health function for Social Security work disability evaluation. |
| Journal | Arch Phys Med Rehabil |
| Year | 2013 |
| Vol | 94 |
| Num | --- |
| Pages | 1645–52 |
| Country | USA |
| Language | English |
| Other references of interest | |
| Link | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29752911/ |
| Brief Description |
Validation of the WD- Physical FAB |
| Link | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC476237 |
| Brief Description |
This study assesses the feasibility and psychometric properties of eight scales covering two domains of the WD-FAB: physical function and behavioral health function. |
| Link | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25991419/ |
| Brief Description |
Study that evaluates the test-retest reliability of the WD-FAB Physical Function and Behavioral Health CATs. |
| Instrument/Tool Translations References | |
| Link | https://www.epr.eu/wp-content/uploads/Presentation-Thomas-Ko … |
| Brief Description |
Adaptation of the WD-FAB to the German language and calibrating its items for computer adaptive testing |
| DEVELOPER CONTACT INFORMATION | |
| Correspondence to | Christine M. McDonough, PhD, PT |
| cmm295@pitt.edu | |
| Address | School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Bridgeside Point 1, 100 Technology Dr, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. |
| Website | --- |
| Available | Amazon Web Services should be contacted |
| Links | --- |
| DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT | |
| Type Of Measure | Composite Index |
| Brief Description |
The WD-FAB is an item bank constructed using contemporary item response theory methods to yield an instrument that can be administered efficiently using computerized adaptive testing techniques. This instrument comprises four multi-item physical function scales: Changing and Maintaining Body Position, Upper Body Function, Upper Extremity Fine Motor, and Whole Body Mobility. The number of items administered by the CAT for each of the PF scales ranged from a minimum of 5 items to a maximum of 8, with the vast majority of respondents achieving the score reliability criterion (>=0.85) after the minimum administration of only 5 items . |
| Number of Items | 139 in the final calibration for physical function |
| Range | --- |
| Responses options/scale |
Yes All items used a 5-point difficulty response scale ranging from “unable to do” to “no difficulty,” |
| Developed for | Both |
| PRACTICAL APPLICATION | |
| Method of administration | Self-administered |
| Recommendations to score |
Higher scores indicate better functioning. Each raw physical function scale score was standardized on a national normative sample and then converted to a T-score (mean of 50, standard deviation of 10). |
| Score Interpretation | The average score range across the four PF scales was 46.9 points. Coefficients of variation were very similar on three of the four scales (20.6 – 22.2), with relatively less score dispersion in Upper Extremity Fine Motor functioning (17.6). |
| Cut-off points | --- |
| Cut-off points applied to | --- |
| Smallest detectable change if described | --- |
| Smallest detectable change applied to | --- |
| Completion time by the patient | -1 minutes |
| Scoring time by the assessor | -1 minutes |
| Training to score | Not necessary |
| Strengths | Useful in clinical practice & research |
| Limitations | Copyrighted, Not widely used |
| OTHER COMMENTS | |
| Other Comments | --- |