Suppr超能文献

单泡和双泡倾斜计评估颈椎侧屈的评分者信度和同时效度

Rater Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Single and Dual Bubble Inclinometry to Assess Cervical Lateral Flexion.

作者信息

Lachtman David S, Bartha Dennis A, Beltran Mario M, Dominguez Danielle N, Messerli Angela R, Miller Susan E, Davis Alice M, Nelson-Wong Erika

机构信息

Student Physical Therapist, Regis University School of Physical Therapy, Denver, CO.

Associate Professor, Regis University School of Physical Therapy, Denver, CO.

出版信息

J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2015 Oct;38(8):572-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2015.08.003. Epub 2015 Sep 26.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess interrater and intrarater reliability and validity for single inclinometry (SI) and dual inclinometry (DI) assessment of cervical lateral flexion (CLF) range of motion and compare reliability in a practicing physical therapist (PT) and student PTs (SPTs).

METHODS

Twenty-four subjects performed right and left CLF while SI, DI, and 3-dimensional kinematics were concurrently recorded. Subjects were reassessed by 2 SPTs and 1 PT using both SI and DI. Each subject was measured twice per rater in round-robin fashion.

RESULTS

There were significant positive relationships between DI and motion capture for both right (r = 0.841; P < .01) and left lateral flexion (r = 0.838; P < .01). Single inclinometry also had a significant correlation with motion capture for right (r = 0.927, P < .01) and left (r = 0.834, P < .01) lateral flexion. Interrater reliability was good for both SI and DI methods. For SI, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (3,1) was 0.905 and 0.870 for right and left CLF, respectively. For DI, ICC(3,1) was 0.803 and 0.757 for right and left CLF, respectively. Intrarater reliability was good for both methods. Average SI values were ICC(2,1) of 0.928 and 0.897 for right and left CLF, respectively. Average DI values were ICC(2,1) of 0.882 and 0.851 for left and right, respectively. Although not significant, the PT had slightly higher reliability in all measures (range, 0.881-0.935) compared to the SPTs (range, 0.880-0.925).

CONCLUSIONS

Both SI and DI are acceptable for clinical use and both are reliable measurement methods for CLF between raters and for repeated measures. There are minimal differences in reliability between a PT with experience and SPTs with minimal experience.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估单倾角测量法(SI)和双倾角测量法(DI)对颈椎侧屈(CLF)活动范围评估的评分者间信度、评分者内信度及效度,并比较有经验的物理治疗师(PT)和学生物理治疗师(SPT)的信度。

方法

24名受试者进行左右侧CLF动作,同时记录SI、DI及三维运动学数据。2名SPT和1名PT使用SI和DI对受试者进行重新评估。每位评分者以循环方式对每位受试者测量两次。

结果

DI与右侧(r = 0.841;P <.01)和左侧侧屈(r = 0.838;P <.01)的运动捕捉之间存在显著正相关。单倾角测量法与右侧(r = 0.927,P <.01)和左侧(r = 0.834,P <.01)侧屈的运动捕捉也有显著相关性。SI和DI方法的评分者间信度均良好。对于SI,右侧和左侧CLF的组内相关系数(ICC)(3,1)分别为0.905和0.870。对于DI,右侧和左侧CLF的ICC(3,1)分别为0.803和0.757。两种方法的评分者内信度均良好。右侧和左侧CLF的平均SI值的ICC(2,1)分别为0.928和0.897。左侧和右侧的平均DI值的ICC(2,1)分别为0.882和0.851。尽管差异不显著,但与SPT(范围为0.880 - 0.925)相比,PT在所有测量中的信度略高(范围为0.881 - 0.935)。

结论

SI和DI均可用于临床,且都是评估评分者间及重复测量时CLF的可靠测量方法。有经验的PT和经验较少的SPT在信度上差异极小。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验