School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, Australia; Body Logic Physiotherapy Clinic, Perth, Australia.
School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, Australia; Body Logic Physiotherapy Clinic, Perth, Australia.
Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2019 Feb;39:107-114. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2018.12.002. Epub 2018 Dec 8.
Beliefs can be assessed using explicit measures (e.g. questionnaires) that rely on information of which the person is 'aware' and willing to disclose. Conversely, implicit measures evaluate beliefs using computer-based tasks that allow reduced time for introspection thus reflecting 'automatic' associations. Thus far, physiotherapists' beliefs about back posture and safety have not been evaluated with implicit measures.
(1) Evaluate implicit associations between bending lifting back posture (straight-back vs round-back) and safety (safe vs danger); (2) Explore correlations between implicit and explicit measures of beliefs towards vulnerability of the back.
Exploratory cross-sectional quantitative study.
47 musculoskeletal physiotherapists completed explicit measures of fear of movement (TSK-HC), back beliefs (BackPAQ) and beliefs related to bending and lifting back posture and safety (BSB). An Implicit Association Test (IAT) was used to assess implicit associations between (i) images of people bending/lifting with a 'round-back' or with a 'straight-back' posture, and (ii) words representing 'safety' and 'danger'. A one-sample t-test assessed the degree and direction of the sample's IAT score. Cohen's d provided an effect size of the estimated bias. Correlation between IAT and each explicit measure was assessed using Pearson's coefficient.
The sample displayed an implicit association between 'round-back' and 'danger' (μ = 0.213, 95% CI [0.075-0.350], p = .003), with an effect size magnitude of 0.45. There were fair to moderate correlations between IAT and BSB (r = 0.320, 95% CI [0.036-0.556], p = .029) and, IAT and BackPAQ (r = 0.413, 95%CI [0.143-0.626], p = .004).
Physiotherapists displayed an implicit bias towards bending and lifting with a round-back as dangerous.
信念可以通过依赖于人们“意识到”并愿意透露的信息的显式测量（例如问卷）来评估。相反，内隐测量使用基于计算机的任务来评估信念，这些任务允许减少内省的时间，从而反映“自动”的联想。到目前为止，物理治疗师对背部姿势和安全性的信念尚未通过内隐测量进行评估。
（1）评估与弯腰抬背姿势（直背与圆背）和安全性（安全与危险）相关的内隐联想；（2）探索内隐和外显测量对背部脆弱性信念之间的相关性。
探索性横截面定量研究。
47 名肌肉骨骼物理治疗师完成了对运动恐惧（TSK-HC）、背部信念（BackPAQ）以及与弯腰和抬背姿势和安全性相关的信念（BSB）的外显测量。使用内隐联想测验（IAT）评估了（i）具有“圆背”或“直背”姿势的人弯腰/举重的图像与代表“安全”和“危险”的单词之间的内隐联想；（ii）。采用单样本 t 检验评估样本 IAT 得分的程度和方向。Cohen's d 提供了估计偏差的效应大小。使用 Pearson 系数评估 IAT 与每个外显测量之间的相关性。
该样本显示出“圆背”和“危险”之间的内隐联想（μ=0.213，95%CI [0.075-0.350]，p=0.003），效应大小为 0.45。IAT 与 BSB（r=0.320，95%CI [0.036-0.556]，p=0.029）和 IAT 与 BackPAQ（r=0.413，95%CI [0.143-0.626]，p=0.004）之间存在从中等到适度的相关性。
物理治疗师表现出对弯腰和抬背时圆背的危险的内隐偏见。
