COMPARISON OF THE TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY OF THE WORK BOX(TM) USING 3ADMINISTRATIVE METHODS

Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare the test-retest re liability of three administrative methods of the Work Box(TM): (a) the original instructions, (b) a revised version of the original instruct ions, and (c) another revised version that was based On suggestions ma de by authors of the first two versions of the instructions. Method. S ixty subjects without disabilities were randomly grouped so that 20 su bjects were tested per administrative method. The assessment was admin istered to each subject an two occasions, with a 7-day to 14-day perio d between tests. Scores were recorded as time in seconds, and intracla ss correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to calculate the reliabil ity. Results. The ICCs for assembly, disassembly, and total scares wer e .583, .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 mor e rather than less experience in similar manual dexterity tasks. Concl usions. On the basis of the reliability of each administrative method and comments made by subjects about their understanding of the instruc tions, the second revised version of the instructions is recommended a s the standard method. The results also indicate that the assessment i s most appropriate for a population of men with manual dexterity exper ience. With further standardization, the Work Box could be a valuable assessment tool for therapists working in industrial rehabilitation se ttings.