计算机双倾角仪测量腰椎活动度的可靠性和有效性。
The reliability and validity of the computerized double inclinometer in measuring lumbar mobility.
作者信息
MacDermid Joy Christine, Arumugam Vanitha, Vincent Joshua Israel, Carroll Krista L
机构信息
McMaster University, School of Rehabilitation Science, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Roth-MacFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Center, St. Joseph's Hospital, London, Ontario, Canada.
University of Western Ontario, Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, London, Ontario, Canada.
出版信息
Open Orthop J. 2014 Oct 17;8:355-60. doi: 10.2174/1874325001408010355. eCollection 2014.
STUDY DESIGN
Repeated measures reliability/validity study.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the concurrent validity, test-retest, inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of lumbar flexion and extension measurements using the Tracker M.E. computerized dual inclinometer (CDI) in comparison to the modified-modified Schober (MMS).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND
Numerous studies have evaluated the reliability and validity of the various methods of measuring spinal motion, but the results are inconsistent. Differences in equipment and techniques make it difficult to correlate results.
METHODS
Twenty subjects with back pain and twenty without back pain were selected through convenience sampling. Two examiners measured sagittal plane lumbar range of motion for each subject. Two separate tests with the CDI and one test with the MMS were conducted. Each test consisted of three trials. Instrument and examiner order was randomly assigned. Intra-class correlations (ICCs 2, 2 and 2, 2) and Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were used to calculate reliability and concurrent validity respectively.
RESULTS
Intra-trial reliability was high to very high for both the CDI (ICCs 0.85 - 0.96) and MMS (ICCs 0.84 - 0.98). However, the reliability was poor to moderate, when the CDI unit had to be repositioned either by the same rate (ICCs 0.16 - 0.59) or a different rater (ICCs 0.45 - 0.52). Inter-rater reliability for the MMS was moderate to high (ICCs 0.75 - 0.82) which bettered the moderate correlation obtained for the CDI (ICCs 0.45 - 0.52). Correlations between the CDI and MMS were poor for flexion (0.32; p<0.05) and poor to moderate (-0.42 - -0.51; p<0.05) for extension measurements.
CONCLUSION
When using the CDI, an average of subsequent tests is required to obtain moderate reliability. The MMS was highly reliable than the CDI. The MMS and the CDI measure lumbar movement on a different metric that are not highly related to each other.
研究设计
重复测量可靠性/有效性研究。
目的
与改良Schober法（MMS）相比，确定使用Tracker M.E.计算机化双倾角仪（CDI）测量腰椎屈伸的同时效度、重测信度、评分者间信度和评分者内信度。
背景概述
众多研究评估了测量脊柱运动的各种方法的可靠性和有效性，但结果并不一致。设备和技术的差异使得结果难以相互关联。
方法
通过便利抽样选取20名背痛患者和20名无背痛患者。两名检查者测量每名受试者腰椎矢状面活动范围。使用CDI进行两次单独测试，使用MMS进行一次测试。每次测试包括三次试验。仪器和检查者顺序随机分配。组内相关系数（ICC 2,2和2,2）和Pearson相关系数（r）分别用于计算信度和同时效度。
结果
CDI（ICC 0.85 - 0.96）和MMS（ICC 0.84 - 0.98）的试验内信度均为高到非常高。然而，当CDI设备必须由同一名检查者重新定位（ICC 0.16 - 0.59）或由不同检查者重新定位（ICC 0.45 - 0.52）时，信度为差到中等。MMS的评分者间信度为中等至高（ICC 0.75 - 0.82），优于CDI获得的中等相关性（ICC 0.45 - 0.52）。CDI与MMS之间的相关性在屈曲时较差（0.32；p<0.05），在伸展测量时为差到中等（-0.42 - -0.51；p<0.05）。
结论
使用CDI时，平均需要进行后续测试才能获得中等信度。MMS比CDI更可靠。MMS和CDI测量腰椎运动的指标不同，彼此之间相关性不高。
Zotero 插件