STUDY DESIGN: Clinical measurement. OBJECTIVES: To determine the interrater and intrarater reliability of the active hip abduction (AHAbd) test. BACKGROUND: The AHAbd test is used to assess lumbopelvic movement during a dynamic lower limb activity. The test has previously been shown to predict low back pain development during a prolonged standing exposure in previously asymptomatic individuals. As an observation-based assessment for which rater reliability has not been established, similar scoring on the test between clinicians is essential. METHODS: One hundred twenty-eight video clips of participants performing the AHAbd test were recorded. Sixteen practicing physical therapists scored test performance by viewing 20 preselected videos to establish interrater reliability. Fourteen of the 16 raters rescored the videos after a 3-week period to establish intrarater reliability. Demographic data were collected for all raters. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for reliability statistics. Correlations were performed between demographic data and ICCs. RESULTS: Interrater reliability (ICC2,1) for the test using the 4-point scale was 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56, 0.84) and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.43, 0.76) when the scale was dichotomized into positive/negative scores. Intrarater reliability (ICC3,1) was 0.74 on average. Demographic characteristics were not significantly associated with reliability scores. CONCLUSION: Interrater and intrarater reliability for scoring of the AHAbd test by practicing clinicians was similar, regardless of experience level or practice setting. The AHAbd test can be considered to be a reliable observational tool.
STUDY DESIGN: Clinical measurement. OBJECTIVES: To determine the interrater and intrarater reliability of the active hip abduction (AHAbd) test. BACKGROUND: The AHAbd test is used to assess lumbopelvic movement during a dynamic lower limb activity. The test has previously been shown to predict low back pain development during a prolonged standing exposure in previously asymptomatic individuals. As an observation-based assessment for which rater reliability has not been established, similar scoring on the test between clinicians is essential. METHODS: One hundred twenty-eight video clips of participants performing the AHAbd test were recorded. Sixteen practicing physical therapists scored test performance by viewing 20 preselected videos to establish interrater reliability. Fourteen of the 16 raters rescored the videos after a 3-week period to establish intrarater reliability. Demographic data were collected for all raters. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for reliability statistics. Correlations were performed between demographic data and ICCs. RESULTS: Interrater reliability (ICC2,1) for the test using the 4-point scale was 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56, 0.84) and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.43, 0.76) when the scale was dichotomized into positive/negative scores. Intrarater reliability (ICC3,1) was 0.74 on average. Demographic characteristics were not significantly associated with reliability scores. CONCLUSION: Interrater and intrarater reliability for scoring of the AHAbd test by practicing clinicians was similar, regardless of experience level or practice setting. The AHAbd test can be considered to be a reliable observational tool.
Authors: Beatriz Rodríguez-Romero; Michelle D Smith; Sonia Pértega-Díaz; Alejandro Quintela-Del-Rio; Venerina Johnston Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: E Nelson-Wong; P Gallant; S Alexander; K Dehmer; S Ingvalson; B McClenahan; A Piatte; K Poupore; A M Davis Journal: J Man Manip Ther Date: 2016-02
Authors: Beatriz Rodríguez-Romero; Michelle D Smith; Alejandro Quintela-Del-Rio; Venerina Johnston Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 3.390