2. (a) For each of 12 activities selected on the basis of a previous study (Wind et al. 2005) as representative of the physical work ability of claimants with MSD (walking, sitting, standing, lifting/carrying, dynamic movement of the trunk, static bending of the trunk, reaching, movement above shoulder height, kneeling/crouching and three activities related RAD001 cost to hand and finger movements), the IP was asked whether the FCE information caused him to revise his initial assessment of the claimant’s ability upwards or downwards, or if it did not change the original assessment. (b) The IP was asked whether the FCE information had reinforced his initial assessment of the claimant’s physical work ability. The response categories were,

again, dichotomous: yes or no.   3. Finally, the IP was asked whether he would consider using FCE in the future to support assessment of the physical work ability of disability benefit claimants; and if so, why, and for what groups of claimants in particular. If

he did not favor the use of the FCE, the IP could also state their reasons for this view.   Data analysis Descriptions of IPs and claimants were calculated. Age and years of experience of IPs were expressed as mean and standard deviation (SD). The other characteristics of STA-9090 datasheet IPs, such as gender and familiarity with FCE, were noted in numbers and percentages. The age of the claimants was expressed as mean and SD. The distribution of the location of the MSD (upper extremity, lower extremity, back and neck, or more than one location) was noted using numbers and percentages. The answer to the first question in the IP questionnaire (whether FCE information was regarded as having complementary value for the assessment of physical work ability) was scored as affirmative when at least 66% of the IPs answered yes to this question. Farnesyltransferase Differences between the groups of IPs that did and did not consider FCE information to be of complementary value, were studied using independent t tests for the relationship between work experience of IP and the outcome on the question about the complementary value of FCE information. Chi square tests

were used to assess differences between the two groups—IPs who do and do not consider the FCE information to be of complementary value—on familiarity with FCE (IPs), location of disorder of the S63845 cell line claimant, and claimant’s work status. Kendall’s tau-c was used to test the association between the two groups of IPs regarding the scores of the revised Oswestry outcome of the claimants. For the answers to the question about the change in IP judgment based on FCE information, the numbers and percentages of IPs in the three categories (IP’s assessment remained unchanged, increased, or decreased with respect to the claimant’s abilities) were noted for each of the 12 activities. In addition, these data and their relation to whether the IPs did or did not consider the FCE information to be of complementary value were tested using Chi square tests.