Along with the comments already posted here, keep in mind that we focus on training "The Thinking Evaluator". This philosophy has its strengths and weaknesses. On the strength side, a thinking evaluator will be able to respond to the unique aspects of the area in which she works, the referral questions posed, the diagnosis of the client and the demands of the job. One can see the advantages to this approach when one considers all of the action at the Federal court level regarding both FCE and Post-Offer testing. Two recent cases, one in your federal district and a state case in California, resulted in fines to the employer of $250,000 each. One case had to do with a cook-book, two day evaluation. The other award was based on use of an invalid test in a post-offer situation.

The downside to following the thinking evaluator approach is that the result of the engagement is affected by the skill of the evaluator. And not all evaluator are created equally! I strongly suggest that if one is going to provide services as an evaluator that they pursue certification as a CWCE. This is one step toward not just completing a training program but putting one-self through a peer review process.

If I remember correctly, from the advanced FCE course, there really is no formal "Matheson System".  Rather, the Matheson System advocates and emphasises "best practice" along with the hierarchy and is very peer reviewed research driven.

Your question was answered completely for me in the Advanced FCE class.  Jim makes some excellent points and these points and others are expanded on very well in that course.  I would recommend taking it.

Karen.

I don't think there is a real fair "quick and dirty" run down on the differences between the Matheson System, and the other commmercially available programs out there.  There was a fairly comprehensive article titled "an analysis of FCE systems" (or something similar) several years ago, I have the table listed in the article, but am unable to find the author(s) for it.  The key things to look at, in my opinion, are;

Matheson does not use a "software driven" protocol for evauation-rather it relies upon the "thinking evaluator" to make sound judgements-enhancing safety and utility in the process. 

Matheson has a clear and unique theoretical division between RPDR and Effort-most others combine the two in some shape or form.

Matheson uses the most comprehensive, fair, and safest tools for evaulating Effort.

Matheson is the safest and most comprehensive system in existence.  Most others rely heavily upon isometric testing and static lifting protocols-something that has never been viewed in the research as a vaild estimation of function.

Hope this helps.  I'll keep looking into the article I mentioned, but, as with most things, it is filed away somewhere.  If you need it, I will find it!