Intratester and intertester reproducibility of the lumbar motion monitor as a measure of range, velocity and acceleration of the thoracolumbar spine.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the intra- and intertester reproducibility of the Lumbar Motion Monitor (LMM) as a measure of thoracolumbar range of motion (RoM), velocity and acceleration. DESIGN: The study was a clinical trial using asymptomatic subjects. BACKGROUND: The LMM is a promising device from a clinical and research perspective, though the reproducibility of it's measurements has yet to be fully determined on subjects under free motion conditions. METHODS: For intratester reproducibility, 15 subjects were required to move as far and as fast as they could in 8 s through flexion, side flexion, and rotation. They were tested on three occasions with 48 h separating tests. For intertester reproducibility, 10 subjects were tested by two examiners, and were required to move as far and as fast as they could in 8 s. RESULTS: Intratester reproducibility coefficients ranged between 0.82 and 0.87 for RoM, 0.61 and 0.87 for velocity, and 0.46 and 0.72 for acceleration. Rotation had the poorest reproducibility in each instance. Intertester reproducibility ranged between 0.93 and 0.98. CONCLUSIONS: The reproducibility of the LMM is suitably high for RoM and velocity for the device to be used for evaluation in a clinical and research setting.

[1]  K. Hayes,et al.  Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of asymptomatic subjects' thoracolumbar range of motion using the OSI CA 6000 Spine Motion Analyzer. , 1994, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[2]  P D O'Connor,et al.  Intrasubject reliability of spinal range of motion and velocity determined by video motion analysis. , 1993, Physical therapy.

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

[4]  W. Marras,et al.  Flexibility and velocity of the normal and impaired lumbar spine. , 1986, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

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

[6]  S R Simon,et al.  The Classification of Anatomic‐ and Symptom‐based Low Back Disorders Using Motion Measure Models , 1995, Spine.

[7]  G. Smidt,et al.  Assessment of Abdominal and Back Extensor Function: A Quantitative Approach and Results for Chronic Low‐Back Patients , 1983, Spine.

[8]  Birgitta Öberg,et al.  Effects of warming up, massage, and stretching on range of motion and muscle strength in the lower extremity , 1983, The American journal of sports medicine.

[9]  L Matheson,et al.  Effect of Instructions on Isokinetic Trunk Strength Testing Variability, Reliability, Absolute Value, and Predictive Validity , 1992, Spine.

[10]  G. Waddell,et al.  Reliability and Validity of Clinical Measurement of the Lumbar Spine in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain , 1991 .

[11]  Gary A. Mirka,et al.  Accuracy of a three-dimensional lumbar motion monitor for recording dynamic trunk motion characteristics , 1992 .

[12]  A. Burton,et al.  Regional lumbar sagittal mobility; measurement by flexicurves. , 1986, Clinical biomechanics.