Commentary on the American Medical Association Guides’ Lumbar Impairment Validity Checks

Study Design. The American Medical Association’s (AMA) Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment range of motion-based (ROM) lumbar impairment model validity checks were reviewed. Published literature of lumbar ROM (LROM) testing also was reviewed for application of the AMA validity checking protocols. Objective. The utility and feasibility of use of the AMA Guides’ ROM lumbar impairment ratings were examined. Summary of Background Data. Although they appear to be essential components of the ROM model, few published studies report use of these validity checks. Of at least 22 reviewed studies of LROM testing, only six studies included at least three measurements (the bare minimum) of LROM. Furthermore, only two (9.1%) reported performance of the LROM validity check. Only one, however, reported the results. Methods. English language journals were searched on Medline using “region, lumbar,” “range of motion,” “validity of results,” “observer variation,” and “low back pain” as title and subject search terms. The study methodologies approximating the AMA Guides’ specifications were included in the analysis. Results. Under normal conditions of ROM measurement, 33% of three consecutive lumbar flexion and 27% of three consecutive lumbar extension measurements failed the LROM validity check. In addition, across three different experimental sessions (each with more than three consecutive LROM measurements taken) only 15 participants (33%) had valid flexion scores and only 24 participants (53%) had valid extension scores across all three sessions. Conclusion. Technical complications inherent in the ROM-based impairment-rating model render the validity checks difficult to perform satisfactorily and thus rarely used.

[1]  H. Alaranta,et al.  Flexibility of the spine: normative values of goniometric and tape measurements. , 1994, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[2]  G. Fitzgerald,et al.  Objective assessment with establishment of normal values for lumbar spinal range of motion. , 1983, Physical therapy.

[3]  A. Taube,et al.  Interexaminer Reliability in Physical Examination of Patients With Low Back Pain , 1997, Spine.

[4]  E. H. Chen,et al.  Reliability of three lumbar sagittal motion measurement methods: surface inclinometers. , 1997, Journal of occupational and environmental medicine.

[5]  S. Boden,et al.  Impairment evaluation based on spinal range of motion in normal subjects. , 1992, Journal of spinal disorders.

[6]  M. Pope,et al.  Range of Motion and Motion Patterns in Patients With Low Back Pain Before and After Rehabilitation , 1998, Spine.

[7]  G. Andersson,et al.  Variance in the Measurement of Sagittal Lumbar Spine Range of Motion Among Examiners, Subjects, and Instruments , 1995, Spine.

[8]  Joshua R. Smith,et al.  Quantification of Lumbar Function: Part 5: Reliability of Range-of-Motion Measures in the Sagittal Plane and an In Vivo Torso Rotation Measurement Technique , 1986, Spine.

[9]  A H McGregor,et al.  Motion Characteristics of the Lumbar Spine in the Normal Population , 1995, Spine.

[10]  R. Brand,et al.  Low-Back Impairment Rating Practices of Orthopaedic Surgeons , 1983, Spine.

[11]  L. Cocchiarella,et al.  Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment , 2000 .

[12]  J. Hildebrandt,et al.  Lumbar Range of Motion: Influence of Time of Day and Individual Factors on Measurements , 1996, Spine.

[13]  T. Mayer,et al.  Reliability Problems Associated with the Modified Schöber Technique for True Lumbar Flexion Measurement , 1992, Spine.

[14]  P. Disler,et al.  Reliability of the American Medical Association guides' model for measuring spinal range of motion. Its implication for whole-person impairment rating. , 1999, Spine.

[15]  K. Storheim,et al.  Intra‐ and interobserver reproducibility of Cybex EDI 320 measuring spinal mobility , 1997, Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports.

[16]  R Williams,et al.  Reliability of the modified-modified Schöber and double inclinometer methods for measuring lumbar flexion and extension. , 1993, Physical therapy.

[17]  T. Mayer,et al.  Use of noninvasive techniques for quantification of spinal range-of-motion in normal subjects and chronic low-back dysfunction patients. , 1984, Spine.

[18]  G. Waddell,et al.  Objective Clinical Evaluation of Physical Impairment in Chronic Low Back Pain , 1992, Spine.

[19]  G B Andersson,et al.  Motion of the Lumbar Spine Reliability of Two Measurement Techniques , 1991, Spine.

[20]  P. Pynsent,et al.  1989 Volvo Award in Clinical Sciences: Reproducibility of Physical Signs in Low-Back Pain , 1989, Spine.

[21]  L. M. Wellock Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment , 1972 .

[22]  L. Haugh,et al.  Repeatability of Four Clinical Methods for Assessment of Lumbar Spinal Motion , 1988, Spine.

[23]  C. Chiarello,et al.  Interrater reliability of the Cybex EDI-320 and fluid goniometer in normals and patients with low back pain. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[24]  D. Turk,et al.  Reliability of the Lumbar Flexion, Lumbar Extension, and Passive Straight Leg Raise Test in Normal Populations Embedded Within a Complete Physical Examination , 2001, Spine.

[25]  J. Hildebrandt,et al.  Lumbar Range of Motion: Reliability and Validity of the Inclinometer Technique in the Clinical Measurement of Trunk Flexibility , 1996, Spine.