Interrater reliability of lumbar accessory motion mobility testing

Department of Physical Therapy, North Georgia College, Dahlonega 30597, USA.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE. This study examined the interrater agreement, or reliability, of accessory motion mobility testing of the lumbar spine in patients with low back pain. SUBJECTS. Subjects were 18 patients with low back pain referred to the physical therapy outpatient department of a university teaching hospital. METHODS. Six orthopedic physical therapists evaluated the posterior-anterior (P-A) accessory motion mobility at each of six levels, L-1 to the sacral base, on each subject. The mobility was recorded on a nine-point scale, and reproduction of pain was noted. The physical therapists noted any level at which mobility or pain findings were of significance to treat. To evaluate agreement on the identification of spinal levels, therapists were asked to identify one spinous process, which was arbitrarily marked on each subject. Kappa analyses and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to evaluate agreement on the level of the marked segment and the mobility at that level, respectively. RESULTS. The ICC for determination of the marked level was R(2,1) = .69 (95% confidence interval = .53-.82). The ICC for mobility findings at the marked level was R(2,1) = .25 (95% confidence interval = 0-.44). A secondary Kappa analysis to determine agreement on treatment decision making demonstrated similarly low levels of agreement. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION. There is poor interrater agreement on determination of the segmental level of a marked spinous process. There is poor interrater reliability of P-A accessory mobility testing in the absence of corroborating clinical data. Caution should be exercised when physical therapists make clinical decisions related to the evaluation of motion at a specific spinal level using P-A accessory motion testing.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				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]

				J. D. Childs, J. M. Fritz, T. W. Flynn, J. J. Irrgang, K. K. Johnson, G. R. Majkowski, and A. Delitto A Clinical Prediction Rule To Identify Patients with Low Back Pain Most Likely To Benefit from Spinal Manipulation: A Validation Study Ann Intern Med, December 21, 2004; 141(12): 920 - 928. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M Fritz, J. M Whitman, T. W Flynn, R. S Wainner, and J. D Childs Factors Related to the Inability of Individuals With Low Back Pain to Improve With a Spinal Manipulation Physical Therapy, February 1, 2004; 84(2): 173 - 190. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. L Riddle, J. M Rothstein, and J. L Echternach Application of the HOAC II: An Episode of Care for a Patient With Low Back Pain Physical Therapy, May 1, 2003; 83(5): 471 - 485. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. A Olson, M. T Cibulka, R. M Koldehoff, D. L Riddle, J. K Freburger, and North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research "Skilled Mentors" and Reliability Physical Therapy, December 1, 2002; 82(12): 1265 - 1268. [Full Text]

				J. J Godges, D. R Varnum, and K. M Sanders Impairment-Based Examination and Disability Management of an Elderly Woman With Sacroiliac Region Pain Physical Therapy, August 1, 2002; 82(8): 812 - 821. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]