Reliability of Three Lumbar Sagittal Motion Measurement Methods

Abstract

Three surface methods for measuring lumbar sagittal motion (LSM) were tested for reliability. The three methods used were the Pleurimeter V double inclinometer, the carpenter double inclinometer, and the computerized single sensor inclinometer. In this study, 30 volunteers were examined independently by three occupational health professionals. Each volunteer rotated twice through three stations at which LSM was measured by each of the three methods. The intra- and interexaminer reliabilities in identifying the skin levels of T12 and S1 were acceptable, having intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) greater than or equal to 0.75. With a single exception, all ICC values for the intraexaminer reliability of LSM measurements fell below 0.90 (a clinically desirable level). The interexaminer reliability was poor, with all ICC values below 0.75. The largest source of measurement error was attributable to the examiner and its associated factors. We concluded that the intra- and interexaminer reliabilities varied greatly, limiting the clinical usefulness of the three surface methods.

Intrarater Reliability and Interrater Reliability in Spinal Motion Assessments

“…In a study using a single-sensor inclinometer, Chen et al(1997) 12) reported ICC=0.39 for extension and ICC=0.69 for bending in terms of interrater reliability, which are lower than the interrater reliabilities found in this study. Furthermore, Dopf et al(1994) 24) reported ICC=0.84 for extension and ICC=0.76 for bending in terms of interrater reliability using a spine motion analyzer, which are lower than the interrater reliabilities found in this study.…”

“…Accordingly, devices to measure the treatment effectiveness of various spinal disorders through the skin surface are being developed 11) , as well as non-invasive techniques to measure spinal mobility, such as goniometer and inclinometer measurements to avoid the problem of repetitive radiation exposure [12][13][14] . A variety of devices have been developed and used for spinal motion assessment, ranging from measurements using a simple tape to computer application devices 13,[15][16][17] .…”

Evaluation and management of occupational low back disorders

“…This evaluation should include an investigation of signs and symptoms of spinal abnormalities and movement dysfunctions, especially of the lower back, utilizing standardized approaches and tests, i.e., the clinical evaluations further reviewed by NIOSH [1992], Nelson [1991], Borenstein and Wiesel [1989], Erdil and Dickerson [1997] or Viikari-Juntura et al [1998]. In general, the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of functional assessments and measurements can differ considerably between test methods, examiners, and even between subsequent exams of the same patient [Leclaire et al, 1996;Chen et al, 1997]. However, in a cooperative patient and with an experienced examiner, the following proposed tests are useful to adequately assess and describe spinal deformity, motion restrictions or painful abnormalities in order to establish a diagnosis and clinical treatment decisions.…”

Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…If clinicians aim to ‘normalise’ dysfunctional movement, they need an empirical basis for (i) differentiating between normal and dysfunctional movement, and (ii) determining whether correction of dysfunctional movement might reduce pain and activity limitation. Measurement of movement and posture has been problematic in typical clinical settings due to limitations (practicality, accuracy, comprehensiveness, reliability) of simple measurement tools such as goniometers, tape measures and inclinometers [7]. Advances in technology are creating new opportunities, available for use in typical clinical settings, that measure comprehensive information about the relationship between movement/posture and pain [8-10].…”