ABSTRACT
Some might argue that this is unsurprising, since the mechanisms by which social service inputs might impact what the users report to be their functional capacity do not engage all causes of change in it. Indeed, they might argue that functional capacity is not amenable to social service treatment for most users. However, to argue this is to misunderstand, first, important circumstances in which alone or catalytically with other inputs, community service inputs can directly affect capacity in its narrowest and most physiological sense; and secondly, that many social and psychological factors influence perceived functioning (Glass, 1998). Examples of the former are periods of recuperation after a function-enhancing medical procedure or other treatment. The latter is the case because the dependent variable is not derived from a test of functioning, but from the perception of users from their capacity to perform the tasks. The actual physical and mental capacity is mediated by subjective factors. In particular, the low morale or depression suffered by many users, the spill-over effects of declines in perceived health status and the like, affect such perceptions (Spector and Fleishman, 1998).
