Interrater reliability of performing a step-by-step procedure for selected pain provocation tests for hamstrings and special tests for other lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries
10.35460/2546-1621.2023-0078
- Author:
Reil Vinard S. Espino
1
;
Consuelo G. Suarez
2
;
Lewis Ingram
3
;
Ivan Neil B. Gomez
1
;
Donald G. Manlapaz
4
;
Vergel B. Orpilla
4
;
Jazzmine Gale S. Flores
4
;
Elaine Nicole S. Bulseco
4
Author Information
1. The Graduate School, University of Santo Tomas;College of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Santo Tomas
2. The Graduate School, University of Santo Tomas;Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Santo Tomas
3. Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia
4. College of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Santo Tomas
- Publication Type:Observational Study
- Keywords:
Interrater reliability;
Special tests;
Pain provocation tests;
Lower extremity injuries
- From:
Journal of Medicine University of Santo Tomas
2024;8(1):1342-1353
- CountryPhilippines
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Objective:Our study aims to establish interrater reliability in performing the step-by-step procedure of selected pain provocation tests for hamstrings and special tests for lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries.
Study Design:An interrater reliability study
Setting:University of Santo Tomas - Sports Science Laboratory
Participants:Ten healthy adults (five females, five males; age = 22.2 ± 0.42) from the university community.
Main outcome measures:Interrater reliability of performing step-by-step procedures for selected pain provocation tests for hamstrings (painful resisted knee flexion 90°, painful resisted knee flexion 30°, active slump test, Puranen-Orava Test, bent knee stretch) and special tests for lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries (Lachman’s test, McMurray’s test, posterior drawer test, valgus, and varus stress test).
Results:Fleiss kappa showed perfect agreement (κ = 1.00) for all test procedures except for Lachman’s test procedure 1 (κ= -0.11 [95% CI, -0.36 to 0.14]), active slump test procedure 4 (κ= -0.03 [95% CI, -0.28 to 0.23]), active slump test procedure 5 (κ= -0.11 [95% CI, -0.28 to 0.23]), and active slump test procedure 6 (κ= -0.05 [95% CI, -0.31 to 0.20]), which resulted in negative agreements.
Conclusions:The researcher developed protocols for each special and provocative test were consistent in measuring the intended procedures, and the raters were generally consistent with their ability to measure these tests.
- Full text:jmust 4.pdf
