1982
DOI: 10.1093/ptj/62.4.436
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reliability in Evaluating Passive Intervertebral Motion

Abstract: Reliable measurements are prerequisite to the successful conduct of outcome studies. In a study of the performance of physical therapists (n = 5) in evaluating passive mobility of the vertebral column with normal subjects (n = 5), several sources of measurement variability were assessed: the reliability within and between therapists, the criteria for grading, and the subjects themselves. Intratherapist reliability was found to be dependable; intertherapist reliability was not. Problems that merit further study… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
29
1
3

Year Published

2000
2000
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 128 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
1
29
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…27 Passive Motion Testing Joint passive accessory motion testing of the hip, sacroiliac joint (SIJ), and lumbar spine was evaluated and graded on a 0-to-6 accessory motion scale. 29,41 The intrarater reliability using this scale to assess spinal passive intervertebral motion (PIVM) was found to be good in 1 published study, 29 although interrater reliability and accuracy have been found to be poor. 8,29,55 Ratings of 3/6 were considered normal and ratings of 1-2/6 were considered hypomobile, as noted in .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…27 Passive Motion Testing Joint passive accessory motion testing of the hip, sacroiliac joint (SIJ), and lumbar spine was evaluated and graded on a 0-to-6 accessory motion scale. 29,41 The intrarater reliability using this scale to assess spinal passive intervertebral motion (PIVM) was found to be good in 1 published study, 29 although interrater reliability and accuracy have been found to be poor. 8,29,55 Ratings of 3/6 were considered normal and ratings of 1-2/6 were considered hypomobile, as noted in .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Findings of this study support the work of Inscoe et al (1995) who found better intratherapist reliability (66.67% and 75% respectively) between two experienced physical therapists, than inter-therapist reliability (48.61%). In addition, Gonnella et al (1982) also reported acceptable levels of intra-therapist reliability but low levels of inter-therapist reliability when five physiotherapists each evaluated the same five subjects twice. However, in both of the above studies PPIVMs were performed on the lumbar spine (Inscoe et al 1995;Gonnella et al 1982) in contrast to the current study in which grade I central PA (PAIVM) was performed on the cervical spine.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…In addition, Gonnella et al (1982) also reported acceptable levels of intra-therapist reliability but low levels of inter-therapist reliability when five physiotherapists each evaluated the same five subjects twice. However, in both of the above studies PPIVMs were performed on the lumbar spine (Inscoe et al 1995;Gonnella et al 1982) in contrast to the current study in which grade I central PA (PAIVM) was performed on the cervical spine. Evidence therefore suggested that intra-therapist repeatability is constantly better than inter-therapist repeatability, whether passive mobilisation techniques were performed on the lumbar or cervical spine.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…sacroiliac joints, which have come to the conclusion that pain provoking tests are superior to other kinds of examination [13]. Studies of the examination of the lumbar spine have reported varying results [6,21]. In most cases, a high degree of inter-observer variation has questioned the validity of the tests.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%