JSPT,

There is a new AMA book titled; Guide to the Evaluation of Functional Ability-How to Request, Interpret, and Apply Functional Capacity Evaluations by Elizabeth Genovese, MD and Jill Galper, PT. This was just published for the first time (2009). So far, it has been an interesting read, with a quote as follows;

(Periodic Screening)

"Employers who use this type of testing should have a set list of criteria on which to base the frequency of screening evaluations, generally achieved by requiring that they be performed at regular intervals (hence, the terminology periodic screening). To use criteria such as weight gain, age, or other conditions that could be considered as "protected" as the basis for ordering a screening test or evaluation is unwise. There is also little to be gained from arranging these evaluations for workers who are already doing their regular jobs, because, regardless of the test results, it would be difficult to make the argument that the are not capable of performing essential job functions. However, the evaluations may be of value to use in the assessment of employees such as fire fighters, police officers, and emergency department personnel for whom essential job functions include the sporadic performance of physically taxing activities."

This sounds a lot like what is often referred to as Fit for Duty or Agility Test. This is not currently part of the RMA curriculum, and I do not have any personal experience in this form of testing. This is typically performed by the employer, although we would bring a valuable set of skills to this. If we are talking about pursuing this type of testing, I would think these truths (and probably more) would remain;

*All workers in this position must be tested, in the same way.
*A very well written job description, with Essential Job Tasks is required.
*Test criteria should have a direct link to Essential Job Tasks.
*A rationale for test development and implementation should be well documented and in place well before testing begins.
*You should have in place a well thought out and comprehensive policy and procedure program that covers at least the most common problems that will arise. Including; what to do for those that do not meet the testing criteria-and a plan for alternative placement.
*The criteria should not significantly differ from what other employers are using for workers in similar jobs.

Let me know what you think!

Let's suppose it is a smaller-town police department with 50 patrol officers The test would apply only to the general patrol officers. All applicants to the force must past the POPPT. The supervising officer is interested in ensuring that all officers, not just the new officers, are physically capable of performing their job duties.

The purpose of the test would be to ensure that, on a yearly basis, the officers are physically capable of performing their essential job tasks.

I think that would depend upon several factors;

What is the purpose of testing all the employees?

*If the purpose is to evalute the criteria measured ("test the test"), a random sample of employee's should be fine.

*If the purpose of the re-test is to see if only selected employee's without injury meet-I would not recommend this practice. That is to say-it could very easily be seen as "discrimination" should they not meet. Also, if someone does not meet using this tactic, a lawsuit would seem very likely if rehab/conditioning was not performed in response, and/or permanent alternative placement was not provided-should they continue "not meeting" once hired and doing the "job". A lot of policies and proceedures will need to be in place to help reduce the risk of the appearance of inpropriety. It would take a really good objective explanation to why it is neccessary in that industry.

*How many employee's are there? If we are talking about a company of 15 employees, testing everyone seems more plausible. Still, I would use a lot of caution.

Thanks for the reply, Jim; great insight.

I did randomly select employees for test validation, which went over very well.

The employer would now like all current employees to participate in the test on a yearly basis to ensure that they continue to be capable of performing their job duties.

My question was, with respect to current employees being required to take the same POPPT, does the employer have to require all employees to take the test on a yearly basis, or can a certain number of current employees be selected randomly by me?

If you feel it is unsafe for an applicant to participate in testing, you will need to get medical clearance from a physician. You should have a form letter ready to go and explicitly have it stated that the MD is clearing the person to participate in testing.

I think you can randomly select persons (you-not the employer for impartiality) to participate in validating a proposed POPP test. I think there are at least two schools of thought regarding incumbents not meeting the POPP test-

*Are the criteria for testing accurate? If a worker only lifts 30 lbs. but you have it down that they must lift 55 lbs., how can you justify this disparity?

*If an incumbent worker does not meet the test criteria-does that mean they are at an increased risk for an injury/accident? Lets say you have a balance test to verify an applicant can work in a wet/slippery area. If a worker does not meet the criteria, does that mean they are at an increased risk for an accident? Could this accident injure other workers?

What will happen next depends upon the reason they did not meet the job demands. I would use the terms of "meets" and "does not meet" vs. "failed". Hope this helps.