The

groups of claimants for which FCE information was thought to be useful were claimants with MSDs, claimants with medically unexplained disorders, claimants with complex disorders, which make it difficult to assess the work ability, like fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, whiplash, and repetitive strain injury, and claimants with a large discrepancy between objective findings and subjective feelings of ATM/ATR inhibitor disability on one side and claimants with MSDs on the other side. These groups were named by resp. three and six IPs, respectively. Two IPs gave 17DMAG cost arguments in favor of FCE assessment not specifically related to claimant characteristics, like when the question about fitness for one’s own job is at stake. Complementary value and future use Finally, IPs who indicated that FCE information has complementary value also have more often the intention of using

FCE information in future disability claim assessments (P = .01), confirming the hypothesis that a positive judgment about the complementary value of FCE was related to an intention of future use of this information in C188-9 mw disability claim procedures. No relation was found between the answer about the complementary value and the reinforcement of judgment. This implicates that FCE information can reinforce the judgment about the physical work ability without being judged as of complementary value according to IPs. Discussion The aim of this study was to establish

whether FCE information had complementary value for IPs in their judgment of physical work ability. About two-thirds of the IPs affirmed the complementary value of FCE in this context, and stated that it helped to provide a firmer basis for their decisions. Sixty-four percent of the IPs indicated that they intend to include FCE information in future disability claim assessments. In contrast to earlier studies about FCE information in work situations (Gross et al. 2004; Gross and Battié 2004, 2006), this study took disability claim assessments into context. The strength of the study is that FCE information was introduced into the normal routine of disability claim assessments. This means that the IPs’ judgment about the complementary value Uroporphyrinogen III synthase of FCE information was placed in the context of work ability assessment practice; it should be noted, however, that the FCE information did not influence the official judgment in the disability process. When an instrument is stated to have complementary value for IPs in the assessment of physical work ability, it should reinforce their judgment and/or alter their judgment of the physical work ability. A majority of IPs did, indeed, indicate that the FCE information had reinforced their initial judgment. Also, a majority of IPs altered their initial assessment as only four IPs stuck by their original appraisal of all activities considered.