Reliability of the AMA guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Volumn 52, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1201-1203

  Forst, Linda ^a   Friedman, Lee ^a   Chukwu, Abraham ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INJURY; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RATING SCALE; WORK CAPACITY; WORKMAN COMPENSATION;

EID: 78650977192     PISSN: 10762752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181fd2782     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Chase K, Brigham RC, Ensalda LH, Talmage JB. Evaluation of Impairment. Clinics in Occupational and Environmental Medicine; 2001.
2. Brigham RC. Study of the Impact on Changing from the American Medical Association (AMA) Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Third Edition Revised to the Fourth or Fifth Editions in Determining Workers' Compensation Impairment Ratings. Performed at the request of the Labor and Employment The State of Colorado; 2002.
3. Haralson RH, III. Evaluation of the spine utilizing the AMA guides to the evaluation of permanent Impairment. 4th ed. Instr Course Lect. 1999;48:451-461.
4. Rondinelli RD, ed. American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Chicago: American Medical Association; 2008.
5. Rondinelli RD, Changes for the new AMA guides to impairment ratings. 6th ed.: Implications and applications for physician disability evaluations. PMR. 2009;1:643-656.
6. McCarthy ML, McAndrew MP, MacKenzie EJ, et al. Correlation between the measures of impairment, according to the modified system of the American Medical Association, and function. J Bone Joint Surv Am. 1998;80:1034-1042.
7. Nitschke JE, Nattrass CL, Disler PB, Chou MJ, Ooi KT. Reliability of the AMA guide's model for measuring spinal range of motion. Its implication for whole-person impairment rating. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24:262-268
8. Patel B, Buschbacher R, Crawford J. National variability in permanent partial impairment ratings. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;82:302-306.
9. Rondinelli RD, Katz RT. Merits and shortcomings of the AMA guides. 5th ed. a physiatric perspective. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2002;13:355-370.
10. World Health Organization. International Classification of functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Geneva; 2001.
11. Spieler EA, Barth PS, Burton JF Jr, Himmelstein J, Rudolph L. Recommendations to guide revision of the guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. American Medical Association. JAMA. 2000;283:519-523.
12. Dake M. In Iowa Workers Compensation Commission Task Force on the AMA Guides Task Force. Appendix D. Report of [a] Member. 2009. .ast;http://www. iowaworkforce.org/wc/amataskforce/2008amataskforcetoc.pdf, http://www. iowaworkforce.org/wc/amataskforce/dakereport.pdf. Accessed July 31, 2010.
13. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. "Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability." Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420-428.
14. Winer BJ. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw Hill;1971.
15. Kentucky workers compensation commissioner report [on the AMA guides. 6th ed]. 2009. Available at: http://www.labor.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/ DC046C16-F0FF-4BB5-98B8-7C1CE7E92D02/0/CommissionerReporton AMAGuides.pdf. Accessed July 31, 2010.
16. Robinson JP, Turk DC, Loeser JD. Pain, impairment, and disability in the AMA guides. J Law Med Ethics. 2004;32:315-26, 191.
17. Colledge A, Hunter B, Bunkali LD, Holmes EB. Impairment rating ambiguity in The United States: the Utah impairment guides for calculating workers compensation impairments. J Korean Med Sci. 2009;24:S232-S241.