Frequency Based on Number of Repetitions?
Posted on Thu, Sep 01, 2011 @ 10:49 AM
Q:
I came across the frequency table below and am wondering if you folks have ever seen this. I am unable to find a reference. Obviously it is referencing the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, but I am unable to find a reference to the repetition/time period. Do you folks have any ideas where I can find a reference?
A:
Before you brought it to my attention, I had not seen the table above. It looks as though someone may have been referring to any number of various ergonomics literature to come up with a 'repetitions per day' structure. Without some reference it is impossible to tell. And therein lies the problem: if this is used in any kind of federal case (incumbent return to work, post offer, etc) it will not fit within Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702. For that reason alone I would not use it. Rule 702, a.k.a. "Testimony by Experts" states:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
The next issue I have with the table is the introduction of new terminology. "Rare", "Infrequent" and "Continuous" are not terms from the Department of Labor. For that reason they will not match with state or federal disability determination systems. This creates a lack of clarity about an evaluator's findings as the ready has to extrapolate the meaning of the findings.
The third issue has to do with referencing the DOT as a source if it truly was not a source. If it truly does reference the DOT as a source then the writer has an issue as was found in Baker v. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security. In that case an evaluator using a commerical system stated under oath than the system's protocol had been "published". The fact was that it had been printed in the system owner's user's manual, but was not really published as in "peer review".
Issue three, above, assumes the writer meant to reference The Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs, the rule book of job analysis.
If the writer had referenced a true source we could then comment on its integrity. Without common knowledge or a good reference we are left in the dark.
If any readers have any additional thoughts on the above table, please let us know by sharing them in the Comments section below!
(Comments will show after approved by moderator)
Want to stay up-to-date on industry news, free webinars, and upcoming courses?
Stay in touch with us on: