PTJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


PHYS THER
Vol. 75, No. 3, March 1995, pp. 212-222

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Simmonds, M.
Right arrow Articles by Lechelt, E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Simmonds, M.
Right arrow Articles by Lechelt, E

Research Report

Use of a spinal model to quantify the forces and motion that occur during therapists' tests of spinal motion

MJ Simmonds, S Kumar, and E Lechelt

School of Physical Therapy, Texas Woman's University, Houston 77030.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE. Despite the widespread use of spinal mobilization, little is known about the forces used or the accuracy of therapists in estimating the forces they use in administering the technique. The purposes of this study were to quantify the forces used and to determine the accuracy of therapists in applying forces on a mechanical model. SUBJECTS. Ten physical therapists participated. METHODS. A spinal model was used to measure applied force and displacement under different conditions of stiffness. The therapists applied oscillatory posteroanterior mobilizations to the model under three different conditions of stiffness. RESULTS. Mean peak forces across grades and stiffness levels ranged between 57.59 and 178.27 N. The forces were generally lower in the least stiff condition. Displacement varied with stiffness and mobilization grade. In the least stiff condition, the mean displacement varied between 2.25 and 3.45 mm for grades 1 to 4, respectively. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION. Inter-therapist variability was high, and there was a systematic bias in underestimating the magnitude of applied force and in overestimating motion. The variability in force application and the general overestimation of motion detection may explain the poor reliability of measurements obtained with clinical tests based on motion palpation.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ptjournalHome page
R. Landel, K. Kulig, M. Fredericson, B. Li, and C. M Powers
Intertester Reliability and Validity of Motion Assessments During Lumbar Spine Accessory Motion Testing
Physical Therapy, January 1, 2008; 88(1): 43 - 49.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ptjournalHome page
J.-Y. Chang, G.-L. Chang, C.-J. C. Chien, K.-C. Chung, and A.-T. Hsu
Effectiveness of Two Forms of Feedback on Training of a Joint Mobilization Skill by Using a Joint Translation Simulator
Physical Therapy, April 1, 2007; 87(4): 418 - 430.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ptjournalHome page
S. J Fruth
Differential Diagnosis and Treatment in a Patient With Posterior Upper Thoracic Pain
Physical Therapy, February 1, 2006; 86(2): 254 - 268.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Sports. Med.Home page
E Ernst and M M Sran
Chiropractic spinal manipulation for back pain * Commentary
Br. J. Sports Med., June 1, 2003; 37(3): 195 - 196.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the American Physical Therapy Association.