User's Manual

265
Many large manufacturing concerns employ industrial engineers that have derived time-motion standards
for the employer’s work site. If an accurate analysis of the work determines that the employee must
perform kneeling activities on an occasional basis, but the work flow is at a rate equivalent to a 95 MTM
standard, then the evaluator has the means to determine if the worker is capable of returning to the job
and the specific demands of the workplace. Although 80 to 100 MTM is considered to be in the
competitive range, an employer with a specific MTM standard will want the worker at or above that
standard – a 95 MTM score in the example given.
For employers not using time-motion standards, the ability to quantify a worker’s capabilities within
internationally recognized time-motion standards provides a firmer basis for assessing performance than
a test where the subject is asked merely to assume a given position.
Is the method by which the test subject performs the process really that important?
The method by which the test subject performs a process is very important to the analysis of the
demonstrated ability of that individual. Time-motion standards are set assuming the specific tasks and
task elements will be performed in the most practical and efficient manner possible. For example, the
upper level reach protocol of the FROM system requires the worker to remove a peg from the unit with
one hand, transfer it to the opposite hand, and then place the peg into the corresponding hole in the next
panel. The process allows the worker to initiate removal of the next peg while the prior one is still being
placed in its proper location.
However, if the test subject were to use only one hand to transfer the first peg from one panel to the
other, the MTM score would reflect a significant negative influence. Specifically, the test subject would
lose the advantage of having both hands work in concert. Conversely, if the test subject were to use both
hands to pull two pegs out simultaneously and then move them into the appropriate holes on the
corresponding panel, the test result would likely produce a higher MTM score.
When should the process be modified, and how should this be reported?
Some individuals, due to impairment, may require modifications to the testing process. In such cases,
use the comments section of the specific test to record any variance required to accommodate the
worker’s ability to perform the test. Any decrement from the norm in the test score should also be
explained.
For example, an individual with residual effects from a closed head injury may have difficulties specifically
related to one-sided weaknesses/deficits. Although the individual may be able to kneel without difficulty
during the course of the test, the transfer of the peg from one hand to the other, as well as the placement
of the peg into the hole using the impacted extremity, may be problematic. In a situation such as this one,
it would be important to record the observation of the deficit, but also to indicate the test subject
demonstrated the ability to kneel without limitations to the lower extremities. The deficit should also be
explained as being a possible performance limitation that could affect the ability to perform activities in the
position if manual dexterity activities are required.
Should I be observing and reporting anything other than the positional tolerances in the time-motion test
process?
Although the primary positional tolerance is the specific focus of a time-motion test using the FROM
system, there are several secondary observations that can have a significant bearing upon a functional
capacity evaluation. For instance, observations related to the upper level reach activity include, but are
not limited to, the following:
the ability to work with the cervical spine in extension
the ability to work with both upper extremities through a range (chest level to full extension reach) of
motion
the ability to perform simple repetitive activities without unnecessary breaks
the ability to coordinate right and left side activities into one process