HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Maher, C. Articles by Adams, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Maher, C. Articles by Adams, R. Related Collections Injuries and Conditions: Spine Tests and Measurements Related Articles Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Is the Clinical Concept of Spinal Stiffness Multidimensional?

C Maher, PT, is Lecturer, School of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, East St, POB 170, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia 2141 (PT_Maher@cchs.su.edu.au).
R Adams, PhD, is Senior Lecturer, School of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney.

Background and Purpose. This study investigated whether the poor reliability of judgments of posteroanterior (PA) spinal stiffness is due to rater bias or is a consequence of raters each having individual concepts of PA stiffness. Subjects. Three pairs of manipulative physical therapists with a minimum of 5 years of experience took part in the study. Methods. The raters were required to make stiffness judgments of a series of metal springs, and their performance at this task was compared with that obtained when they rated the PA stiffness of patients with low back pain. A range of reliability indices were calculated and evaluated to establish whether rater bias contributed to poor reliability in either task. The relationship between each rater's estimates of the magnitude of the stimuli and the measured stiffness of the springs was also assessed using the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient. Results. The average intraclass correlation coefficient (2,1) for rating spring stiffness was found to be .60, whereas for human spines it was found to be .19. There was no evidence of rater bias contributing to poor reliability for rating stiffness of human spines. The average correlation between the rater's estimates of the magnitude of the stimuli and the measured stiffness of the stimuli was .80. Conclusion and Discussion. Physical therapists demonstrated much better ability to judge spring stiffness than the PA stiffness of human spines. This difference in performance implies that mechanical stiffness is not equivalent to the clinical concept of PA stiffness. Posteroanterior stiffness may have more than one dimension, and individual interpretation of stiffness as a construct may lead to rater disagreement in the clinic. The reliability of judgments of PA spinal stiffness may be enhanced in the future if its dimensions can be identified, defined, and taken into account during clinical procedures.

Key Words: Palpation • Perception • Physical therapy • Psychophysics

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

Invited Commentary

Peter V Loubert
Physical Therapy 1995 75: 861-862. [Abstract] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Landel, K. Kulig, M. Fredericson, B. Li, and C. M Powers Author Response Physical Therapy, April 1, 2008; 88(4): 536 - 537. [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]