Free
Research Article  |   July 1997
Comparison of the Test–Retest Reliability of the Work Box™ Using Three Administrative Methods
Loucretia Speller; Judith A. Trollinger; Patti A. Maurer; Craig E. Nelson; David F. Bauer
Author Affiliations
  • Loucretia Speller, MS, OTR, is Staff Therapist, Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Greenville, North Carolina
  • Judith A. Trollinger, MEd, MS, OTR, is Staff Therapist, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa
  • Patti A. Maurer, PhD, OTR, FAOTA, was Professor Emerita, Department of Occupational Therapy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, at the time of this study
  • Craig E. Nelson, MS, OTR/C, is Clinical Coordinator, Service Master Rehabilitation, Eldercare Farmville, Rt. 5, Scott Drive, Farmville, Virginia 23901. At the time of this study, he was Associate Professor, Department of Occupational Therapy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
  • David F. Bauer, PhD, is Associate Professor, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
Article Information
Assessment Development and Testing / Rehabilitation, Participation, and Disability / Research
Research Article   |   July 1997
Comparison of the Test–Retest Reliability of the Work Box™ Using Three Administrative Methods
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, July/August 1997, Vol. 51, 516-522. doi:10.5014/ajot.51.7.516
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, July/August 1997, Vol. 51, 516-522. doi:10.5014/ajot.51.7.516
This content is PDF only. Please click on the PDF icon to access.
Abstract

Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare the test–retest reliability of three administrative methods of the Work Box™: (a) the original instructions, (b) a revised version of the original instructions, and (c) another revised version that was based on suggestions made by authors of the first two versions of the instructions.

Method. Sixty subjects without disabilities were randomly grouped so that 20 subjects were tested per administrative method. The assessment was administered to each subject on two occasions, with a 7-day to 14-day period between tests. Scores were recorded as time in seconds, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to calculate the reliability.

Results. The ICCs for assembly, disassembly, and total scores were .589, .604, and .654, respectively, for the original instructions; .424, .572, and .545 for the revised instructions; and .781, .579, and .717 for the second revised instructions. Reliability was found to be higher for men than for women and for subjects who claimed to have more rather than less experience in similar manual dexterity tasks.

Conclusions. On the basis of the reliability of each administrative method and comments made by subjects about their understanding of the instructions, the second revised version of the instructions is recommended as the standard method. The results also indicate that the assessment is most appropriate for a population of men with manual dexterity experience. With further standardization, the Work Box could be a valuable assessment tool for therapists working in industrial rehabilitation settings.