I am in the process of comparing the major FCE systems in the USA. I have compared Joule, Matheson, WorkWell, Blankenship, ErgoScience, Key and Arcon (Ergometer).

I can tell you that, hidden between IP reasons (intellectual properties) none of them is as generous and wide-stanced (comprehensive) in their rationale than Matheson. Blankenship, on his side, has never published anything that tells about the measurement properties of his system. He has done some research on his own things, but hey, everybody does, right? Is this because research exists that the product is good? It depends on the research quality!

There are two reasons why you don't get research published: either you don't "take the time", or your research articles are not accepted in peer reviewed journals. Why, I'm telling you, under this Daubert world, would someone choose not to publish their research? I have no idea.

Good luck.

Sonia

Jon,

I too was curious as to what all the other "systems" and "philosophies" out there entailed, and took the course last fall with Min Kyi titled "Advanced FCE." This course was a wonderful experience, and included a review/critique for various FCE systems, along with a review of current research (grip, HR analysis, RCR techniques). Min was very fair and objective, pointing out that the RMA phillosophy exemplifies the concept of "best practice" whatever that is found to be.

Sadly, this course is not included in the course schedule for this year, as of my last review. I do not have my course handbook with me now (loaded with research articles and synopses), but would be willing to get back to you if someone out there does not come forward with more empirical knowledge regarding your specific question.

Earlier this week I performed an FCE for a legal source to provide further input on the RCR of a client. Included in the medical information provided me was a copy of a recent "FCE" using the JOULE system. I reserved the review of this part of the record completely, untill I had come to my own conclusions. I can report now that what I have reviewed is no comparison to what I provided to the referral source. Having reveiwed it several times, I am unaware of how, if at all, the conclusions the evaluator came to are substantiated. Even the fundamentals; like grip testing and the material handling testing (with apparent extrapolation), provide no objective data. Just table after table of un-objective conclusions without explanation or basis for why. This is augmented by a complete absence of RCR qualification, other than-I guess- if the client's request to stop correlated with the end of the individual tests-whatever they are/were/could have been. Just thought I'd let you in on my recent experience with another "system."