About
Scope & Aims
Editorial office
Editorial board
Ethical standards and procedures
Abstracting and indexing
Contact
Articles & Issues
Current issue
Articles in press
Archive
For Authors
General rules
Ethics in publishing
Guide for authors
Templates
Publication charge
For Reviewers
Our reviewers
Ethics in publishing
Guide for reviewers
Books and Events
Books
Events
ORIGINAL PAPER
Test–retest and inter-rater reliability of lumbar range of motion procedure using back range of motion instrument
1
Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Chulalongkorn, University, Bangkok, Thailand
Submission date: 2022-04-16
Acceptance date: 2022-10-27
Publication date: 2024-03-25
Physiother Quart. 2024;32(1):73-77
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
To investigate the test–retest and inter-rater reliability of a new protocol using the back range of motion instrument (BROM II) to measure the lumbar range of motion (LROM).
Methods:
Five raters and twenty healthy subjects participated in this study. Before the measurement, all raters and all subjects were asked to watch a 4-minute video clip demonstrating the rating method. The raters and the subjects were then asked to practice the testing protocol until they thoroughly understood it. The subjects were asked to move the lumbar spine in six directions, with consistent verbal instruction. The raters measured the subjects’ LROM twice and were blinded to the data. The intraclass correlation coefficients were used to estimate the test–retest and inter-rater reliability of the LROM.
Results:
The results showed that the intra-rater reliability [ICC(3,1)] was good-to-excellent, ranging from 0.82 to 0.98, except for the LROM in the right rotation, which was moderate-to-good, ranging from 0.74 to 0.97. The inter-rater reliability [ICC(2,1)] was good-to-excellent, ranging from 0.78 to 0.87.
Conclusions:
The intra- and inter-rater reliability of this protocol in measuring LROM obtained by the BROM II were reliable and suitable for both teaching and research.
To investigate the test–retest and inter-rater reliability of a new protocol using the back range of motion instrument (BROM II) to measure the lumbar range of motion (LROM).
Methods:
Five raters and twenty healthy subjects participated in this study. Before the measurement, all raters and all subjects were asked to watch a 4-minute video clip demonstrating the rating method. The raters and the subjects were then asked to practice the testing protocol until they thoroughly understood it. The subjects were asked to move the lumbar spine in six directions, with consistent verbal instruction. The raters measured the subjects’ LROM twice and were blinded to the data. The intraclass correlation coefficients were used to estimate the test–retest and inter-rater reliability of the LROM.
Results:
The results showed that the intra-rater reliability [ICC(3,1)] was good-to-excellent, ranging from 0.82 to 0.98, except for the LROM in the right rotation, which was moderate-to-good, ranging from 0.74 to 0.97. The inter-rater reliability [ICC(2,1)] was good-to-excellent, ranging from 0.78 to 0.87.
Conclusions:
The intra- and inter-rater reliability of this protocol in measuring LROM obtained by the BROM II were reliable and suitable for both teaching and research.
REFERENCES (19)
1.
Perret C, Poiraudeau S, Fermanian J, Colau MML, Benhamou MAM, Revel M. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the fingertip-to-floor test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(11):1566–1570; doi: 10.1053/apmr.2001.26064.
2.
Carregaro RL, Silva LCCB, Coury HJC. Comparison between two clinical tests for evaluating the flexibility of the posterior muscles of the thigh. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2007;11(2):139–145; doi: 10.1590/S1413-35552007000200009.
3.
Merritt JL, McLean TJ, Erickson RP, Offord KP. Measurement of trunk flexibility in normal subjects: reproducibility of three clinical methods. Mayo Clin Proc. 1986;61(3):192–197; doi: 10.1016/s0025-6196(12)61848-5.
4.
Youdas JW, Suman VJ, Garrett TR. Reliability of measurements of lumbar spine sagittal mobility obtained with the flexible curve. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1995;21(1):13–20; doi: 10.2519/jospt.1995.21.1.13.
5.
Mirbagheri SS, Rahmani-Rasa A, Farmani F, Amini P, Nikoo MR. Evaluating kyphosis and lordosis in students by using a flexible ruler and their relationship with severity and frequency of thoracic and lumbar pain. Asian Spine J. 2015;9(3):416–422; doi: 10.4184/asj.2015.9.3.416.
6.
Reese NB, Bandy WD. Joint range of motion and muscle length testing. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2002.
7.
Kachingwe AF, Phillips BJ. Inter- and intrarater reliability of a back range of motion instrument. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(12):2347–2353; doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.07.304.
8.
Nitschke JE, Nattrass CL, Disler PB, Chou MJ, Ooi KT. Reliability of the American Medical Association guides’ model for measuring spinal range of motion: Its implication for whole-person impairment rating. Spine. 1999;24(3):262–268; doi: 10.1097/00007632-199902010-00013.
9.
Ng JK, Kippers V, Richardson CA, Parnianpour M. Range of motion and lordosis of the lumbar spine: reliability of measurement and normative values. Spine. 2001;26(1):53–60; doi: 10.1097/00007632-200101010-00011.
10.
Breum J, Wiberg J, Bolton JE. Reliability and concurrent validity of the BROM II for measuring lumbar mobility. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995;18(8):497–502.
11.
Performance Attainment Associates. BROM II: back range of motion [brochure B201 and video]. Roseville: Performance Attainment Associates; 1992.
12.
Atya AM. The validity of spinal mobility for prediction of functional disability in male patients with low back pain. J Adv Res. 2013;4(1):43–49; doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2012.01.002.
13.
Tousignant M, Morissette J, Murphy M. Criterion validity study of lumbar goniometers BROM II and EDI-320 for range of motion of lumbar flexion of low back pain patients. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2002;16(4):159–167; doi: 10.3233/bmr-2002-16407.
14.
Madson TJ, Youdas JW, Suman VJ. Reproducibility of lumbar spine range of motion measurements using the back range of motion device. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1999;29(8):470–477; doi: 10.2519/jospt.1999.29.8.470.
15.
Kpanja E. A Study of the effects of video tape recording in microteaching training. Br J Educ Tech. 2001;32(4):483–486; doi: 10.1111/1467-8535.00215.
16.
Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med. 1998;17(1):101–110; doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980115)17:1<101::aid-sim727>3.0.co;2-e.
17.
McIlroy WE, Maki BE. Preferred placement of the feet during quiet stance: development of a standardized foot placement for balance testing. Clin Biomech. 1997;12(1):66–70; doi: 10.1016/s0268-0033(96)00040-x.
18.
Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. 3rd edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2009.
19.
Mayer TG, Kondraske G, Beals SB, Gatchel RJ. Spinal range of motion. Accuracy and sources of error with inclinometric measurement. Spine. 1997;22(17):1976–1984; doi: 10.1097/00007632-199709010-00006.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2544-4395 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
