The fact that FCE information is of Entospletinib complementary value increases the intention of future use. Thus, the hypothesis is not rejected that when IPs consider FCE information to be of complementary

value, they APR-246 price will also intend to make use of this information in future disability claim assessments. One explanation for this might be that IPs do not have many instruments upon which to base their judgment when assessing work ability of claimants in the context of disability claims. FCE information is a potential instrument to assist them in this task. IPs in the group that considered the FCE information to be of complementary value, changed their judgment significantly more often as compared to their colleagues with the opposing opinion.

The following remarks may be made with regard to the external validity of the results: 1. In this study, IPs could not directly refer claimants for FCE assessment; moreover, claimants were completely free to decide whether they would participate and undergo the FCE assessment. This avoids the possibility of bias present in cases where claimants are referred to assessments like FCE by IPs. Since the IPs could not refer the claimants for FCE, their positive appraisal of the complementary value of such tests is unlikely to be falsified by their preconceived views.   2. Since a majority of the IPs indicated that they would consider using FCE information in future disability

claim assessments, it may be expected that if they could refer claimants for FCE assessment in appropriate cases, their appreciation this website of the complementary value of FCE information might be even higher.   IPs believe that claimants for whom a discrepancy is found between the subjective complaints and expected objective findings would be a suitable target group for FCE in future disability claim assessments. In these cases, the claimant, who is usually the primary source of information (De Bont et al. 2002), will naturally tend to give a low estimate of their own physical work ability. The findings from physical examination, on the other hand, usually show little or no objective abnormality findings and cannot support the patients’ view of their work ability. Whether this patient group is, indeed, a more suitable group for these forms of assessment why of physical disability cannot be concluded from this study. This would, however, be an interesting topic for future research. Some remarks are necessary about the choice of tests. In our study, we used the full FCE Ergo-Kit. Since the objective was to investigate the complementary value of FCE information for IPs in assessment of the work ability of claimants with MSD, there is no reason to limit the extent of the test battery. It is conceivable, however, that not all information generated by a full FCE may be required in all situations.