What Is Inter-Rater Reliability?

We need to know the normal range of movement of the muscles and joints so when moving, handling and positioning a person we know the limits of each limb. We need to take into consideration other factors that may inhibit a person’s movements as:

a. In order to test the passive sufficiency of a bi-articular structure, such as a muscle, both joints which that structure crosses must first be identified. Additionally, the movements of those two joints which will constrain that structure must be identified. Next, one joint must be selected, and placed into the position that may constrain the structure. At the same time, the other joint must be placed in the position which will not put further strain on that structure. The selected joint must then be measured for its range of motion. Next, the same must be done with the selected joint, but in contrast, the other joint must be placed in the position which WILL further constrain the bi-articular structure. Once that has been done, the selected joint’s range of motion must be measured once more.

A clinician, respectively, should produce the patient’s clinical history and results, as well as the measurement properties of the index, this well better format and put in place short- and long-term goals based on an individual-report functional scale like the LEFS (1). The intention of this research was to assess the reliability, construct validity, and sensitivity to change the Lower Extremity Functional Scale. This test was given to 107 patients with lower-extremity musculoskeletal dysfunction referred to twelve outpatient PT clinics. This index was dispensed during the patient’s initial assessment, 24 to 48 hours following the initial assessment, and then at weekly intervals for four weeks (1). A patient with an initial LEFS score of 56/80, an example of lower extremity functional scale is to create functional level, set goals, and track progress and outcome, based on the error at any specific position in time for the LEFS of five points, the therapist can be highly confident that the actual scale score is between 51 and 61 (1). The leeway, or error, associated with an assumed measure on the LEFS is about plus or minus five scale points (90% confident intervals). A clinician, ergo, can be moderately confident that an observed score within the parameter of five points of the patient’s “true” outcome (1). The short-form 36-health survey (SF-36) is a 36-item, patient-delivered

*insert article *attachedBesides being able to see the inside of a shoulder, doctors use different physical tests to evaluate the shoulder in order to determine what type of injury and how severe an injury may be. One such test was recently developed by Dr. Carl J. Basamania at the Womack Army Medical center in Fort Bragg, N.C. The test was developed to evaluate shoulder instability in a patient. During the test the Dr. or examiner stands next to the patient who is to lay flat on his/her back. The hand of the examined should is held firmly by the examiner. The examiner then pushes against the clavicle to stabilize th scapula, while they also gently hold the pectoral muscle with their thumb in order to be able to assess relaxation. The examiner then rotates the arm form neutral to full external rotation. If the patient has AIGHL incompetence there is a lack of tightening as the arm reaches full external rotation. The test has appeared to be highly accurate and may be of value to Dr.'s and surgeons alike. After doctors have determined what type and what degree of injury a patient has sustained using various tests it is on to the next step, rehabilitation.

I was unable to figure sensitivity and specificity secondary to no raw data was given in the article. However the article did state, the inter-rater reliability intraclass correlation coefficient (ICCs) ranged from 0.93 to 1.000. The standard measurement error (SEMs) ranged from 0.00 to 2.15 and smallest real difference (SRDs) ranged from 0.39 to 5.96. For the test-retest reliability, after two weeks, the ICCs were .834 to .972. To assess concurrent validity, the relationship between the FMA upper body motor function and Jebson-Taylor hand function was 0.757, and the relationship between the lower body motor function of FMA and the MAS was 0.725. The responsiveness of the FMA three months following the baseline assessment was the effect size

During the evaluation and examination process, the physical therapist interviews patient, gather history and physical information as well as administer different testing and measurements as selectively indicated to materialized a clinical hypotheses of the functional movement impairment of a patient or client. Of note, are multiple test and measurements that are being used in clinical practice setting like hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, or outpatient clinics. In essence, the idea of administering tests and measures is to analyze the probable cause of any functional movement problems, which will identify any skilled needs for physical therapy services. The screening is a presumptive identification of unrecognized disease or defect by

A routine of different muscles are subject to observation under repeated physical activity. This involves steps like looking upwards and sidewards for about 30 seconds, looking at the feet while lying on the back for 30 seconds which helps to identify diplopia and ptosis and keeping arms stretched forward for 60 seconds. Patients are unable to maintain prolonged extension of limbs due to fatigue.

For shoulder flexion 61% of the variance could be accounted for by the sit-and-reach. A correlation was also found between the modified sit-and-reach test and both the shoulder extension and hip flexion tests. For shoulder extension 33% of the variance was accounted for by the modified sit-and-reach and for hip flexion 22% of the variance was accounted for by the modified sit-and-reach.

The patient's knee joint position during the Lachman's test might affect the grade given. Because examiners do not agree on the position of the knee joint during the Lachman's test, reliability might be affected if they do not place the knee in the same position each time they administer the test (Donaldson 1985 ). Similarly, grading might be affected as experience of therapists differs from each other. Hence, judgments based on the Lachman's test are inconsistent when made by inexperienced testers, but such judgments become more "reliable" as testers become more experienced (Dehaven, 1980; Noyes,

Figures C and D entails that there was a significant statistical difference in core body exercises, compared to lower body exercises and the baseline testing during the UNPST. There was also a significant decrease for the lower body exercises from baseline for the condition of eyes open for the UNPST due to the the UNPST favoring the core exercises over the lower body exercises. Moreover, a practicable interpretation of the results may have been generated due to the 10 second rest period between the each of the balancing tests and trials.There was only 1 trial for eyes open and eyes closed, while using the Biodex balance m-CTSIB. While there were 3 trials consisting of eyes open, and 3 trials of eyes closed during the UNPST.Being that the UNPST consisted of 3 consecutive trials, which allowed more time for the participant to regain and improve their balance. A vast amount of the participants struggled to maintain their balance during the UNPST eyes closed trials; which was to be expected. Without the control of visual, vestibular, and the somatosensory input, balance may have influenced a challenge for

Validity and reliability: Reliability depends on the ability to achieve a given measurement consistently. Validity depends on the

My client performed the Arm Curl, Chair Stand, Push Up, Standing Heel Raise, Unilateral Step Down, Single Leg Stance Eyes Open, Single Leg Stance Eye Closed, Standing Stroke, Four Square Step, Time Up and Go, Four Meter Walk Velocity, and Two-Minute Walk Test. He scored 28 reps in 30 seconds for the Arm Curl Test. In the Chair Stand Test he recorded 50 reps. In the Push Up Test he was able to do 31 reps. In the Standing Heel Raise Test he was able to do 31 reps for the left foot and 32 reps for the right foot. In the Single Leg Stance Test with eyes open he recorded 90 seconds on both legs. With eyes closed he recorded 9 seconds on his left leg and 8 seconds on his right leg. In the Standing Stroke he got 3 seconds for both right and left legs. For the Four Square Step Test he had three trials. He finished in a time of 4 seconds for one, 3.9 seconds for the other and had 1 miss trial. In the Time Up and Go test he completed it in 3.8 seconds. For the 4-Meter Walk Velocity Test he completed it in 1.72 seconds and had a speed of 2.33m/s. In the 2-Minute march test he completed 92 reps.

A highly reliable measurement of ROM would yield consistent measurement results when successive measurements are taken on the same subject under the same conditions. When the goniometric or inclinometry measurement is valid, an examiner can confidently use the results of a highly reliable measurement to determine the mobility and flexibility of a joint or even diagnose a change in dysfunction due to the minimal measurement error. Only by obtaining a reliable and consistent measurement of elbow range of motion can the presence of joint ROM limitation be diagnosed, patients’ improvements toward rehabilitation be evaluated, and the usefulness of therapeutic interventions be assessed. Based on the subject’s performance in range of motion assessments, appropriate range of motion exercises could then be assigned to patients who have a limited elbow extension range. It is important for joint flexibility to be improved or maintained because motions such as elbow extension is essential for transfers, propped sitting, reaching for objects and

The first primary component of a kinesiological analysis is describing a skill. To describe a skill a person needs to figure out the primary purpose of the skill and if it asserts the need for speed, accuracy, form, and distance. Then identify the movement phases from beginning to end. Classify the skill to determine the mechanical and anatomical requirements of the skill. Break down the movements to figure out whether the movements are simultaneous, sequential or both of them. Then the person needs to evaluate the performance of the action by identifying the errors in the anatomical and mechanical analysis. To do the anatomical analysis a person should look at the skeletal joint action to analyze the process of the action. The mechanical analysis

Despite the advantages of the observational methods for assessing the risk factors associated with WMSDs, the existing observational methods still have various limitations. The developed observational methods such as Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) (McAtamney & Corlett, 1993) and Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) (Hignett & McAtamney, 2000) faced various limitations when they were utilized to assess the risk factors of WMSDS due to the variation of postures, working duration and movement frequency of the lower extremity (Kong, Han, & Kim, 2010). It might be contributed by the fact that most observational methods were designed to be an assessment tool for the risk factors of back, neck, shoulders and arms (Li & Buckle, 1999). In the other