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


     

PHYS THER
Vol. 78, No. 8, August 1998, pp. 829-837
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 Maher, C.
Right arrow Articles by Adams, R
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Maher, C.
Right arrow Articles by Adams, R

Article

An investigation of the reliability and validity of posteroanterior spinal stiffness judgments made using a reference-based protocol

CG Maher, J Latimer, and R Adams

School of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia. c.maher@cchs.usyd.edu.au

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The reliability and criterion-related validity of ratings of posteroanterior (PA) spinal stiffness made using reference values for comparison have not been investigated. In this study, mechanical reference stimuli for points on an 11-point rating scale were used to determine whether using a reference scale may be feasible. Subjects. Five different raters took part in 2 studies in which they rated 40 subjects who were asymptomatic for low back pain. METHODS: The interrater reliability of ratings was evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and standard errors of the measurement (SEMs). Criterion-related validity was evaluated by correlating judgments of PA spinal stiffness assessed manually with measurements of PA spinal stiffness provided by a mechanical device, the "Stiffness Assessment Machine" (SAM). RESULTS: Although the reliability indices were generally high, with ICCs reaching .77 and with SEMs as low as 0.72 points, the evidence for criterion-related validity (i.e., the ability of the examiner to judge spinal stiffness levels) was not strong, with correlations reaching only .56. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION: The reference-based protocol allows for more reliable measures of PA stiffness judgments than previous protocols have; however, the human ratings are not highly correlated with the SAM measures. The protocol will have clinical value if judgments made using it are shown to be reliable in clinically relevant subjects and to have validity for clinical management of patients.


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
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
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]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the American Physical Therapy Association.