Development of the functional assessment taxonomy

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 155-175

  Gaudino, Elizabeth A ^a   Matheson, Leonard N ^b   Mael, Fred A ^a  

^a AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Disability determination; Functional assessment; Taxonomy; Work disability model

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES; WORK CAPACITY;

CLASSIFICATION; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; WORK CAPACITY EVALUATION;

EID: 0035468563     PISSN: 10530487     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1013022410767     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Social Security Administration. Social Security Handbook. Washington, DC: Social Security Administration, 2001.
2. Hildebrandt J, Pfingsten M, Saur P, Jansen J. Prediction of success from a multidisciplinary treatment program for chronic low back pain. Spine 1997; 22: 990-1001.
3. Duncan P. Stroke disability. Phys Ther 1994; 74: 399-407.
4. Walker J. The difference between disability and impairment: A distinction worth making. J Occup Rehab 1993; 3: 167-172.
5. Heinemann A, Linacre J, Wright B, Hamilton B, Granger C. Relationships between impairment and physical disability as measured by the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74: 566-572.
6. Pincus H, Kennedy C, Simmens S, Goldman H, Sirovatka P, Sharfstein S. Determining disability due to mental impairment: APA's evaluation of Social Security administration guidelines. Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148: 1037-1043.
7. Andersson G. Impairment evaluation issues and the disability system. In: Mayer T, Mooney J, Gatchel R. ed. Contemporary conservative care for painful spinal disorders. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1991, pp. 531-535.
8. Luck J, Florence D. A brief history and comparative analysis of disability systems and impairment rating guides. Orthop Clin North Amer 1988; 19: 839-844.
9. Clark W, Haldeman S, Johnson P, Morris J, Schulenberger C, Trauner D, White A. Back impairment and disability determination. Spine 1988; 13: 332-341.
10. Mooney V. Impairment, disability, and handicap. Clin Orthop 1987; 221: 14-25.
11. Asikainen I, Kaste M, Sarna S. Predicting late outcome for patients with traumatic brain injury referred to a rehabilitation programme: A study of 5018 Finnish patients 5 years or more after injury. Brain Inj 1998; 12: 95-107.
12. Baker JG, Fiedler RC, Ottenbacher KJ, Czyrny JJ, Heinemann AW. Predicting follow-up functional outcomes in outpatient rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1998; 77: 202-212.
13. Ezrachi O, Ben-Yishay, Y, Kay T, Diller L, Rattok J. Predicting employment in traumatic brain injury following neuropsychological rehabilitation. J Head Trauma Rehabil 1991; 6: 71-84.
14. Frymoyer J. Predicting disability from low back pain. Clin Orthop 1992; 279: 101-109.
15. Gulick E. Model for predicting work performance among persons with multiple sclerosis. Nurs Res 1992; 41: 266-272.
16. O'Grady R, Crain L, Kohn J. The prediction of long-term functional outcomes of children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 1995; 37: 997-1005.
17. Velozo C, Lustman P, Cole D, Montag J, Eubanks B. Prediction of return to work by rehabilitation professionals. J Occup 1991; 1: 271-280.
18. Whiteneck G, Tate D, Charlifue S. Predicting community reintegration after spinal cord injury from demographic and injury characteristics. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80: 1485-1491.
19. Social Security Administration. Plan for a new disability claim process. Washington, DC: Social Security Administration, 1994.
20. Nagi S. Disability concepts and prevalence. In: Mary Switzer Memorial Seminar. Cleveland, OH: National Rehabilitation Association, 1975.
21. Nagi S. Disability concepts revisited: Implications for prevention. In: Pope A, Tarlov A. ed. Disability in America. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991, pp. 309-327.
22. Pope A, Tarlov A. Disability in America: Toward a national agenda for prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991.
23. Institute of Medicine. Enabling America: Assessing the role of rehabilitation science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997.
24. National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research (NCMRR). Research plan for the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, 1993.
25. World Health Organization, International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1980.
26. Christiansen C, Baum C. ed. Occupational Therapy: Enabling function and well being. Thorofare, NJ: Slack, 1997.
27. Rucker K, Wehman P, Kregel J. Analysis of functional assessment instruments for disability/rehabilitation programs. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University, 1996.
28. Anderson L, Mael F. Synthesis of research and development of prototypes for a new disability determination methodology. Activity report: Pilot exercise to identify gaps. Washington DC: American Institutes for Research, 1998.
29. World Health Organization. ICIDH-2: International Classification of Impairments. Activities and Participation: A manual of dimensions of disablement and functioning. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1997.
30. American Medical Association. Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 1993.
31. Kuhn T. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.