Index > Vol. 39/2007 > Iss. 2/March > pp. 133-137 > Abstract
Original report | Pain problems and muscoloskeletal disorders, Methodological studies

Test-retest reliability of psychophysical lift capacity in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain and healthy subjects

doi: 10.2340/16501977-0014

Abstract:

Objective: Psychophysical lift capacity tests are lifting tests in which the performance, expressed in Newtons, is divided by the perceived exertion, expressed on a Borg scale. The aim of this study was to analyse test-retest reliability of psycho­physical lift capacity tests.
Subjects: Patients with non-specific chronic low back pain (n=20) and healthy subjects (n=20).
Methods: Psychophysical lift capacity tests were assessed during a back school intake at the Centre for Rehabilitation of the University Medical Centre Groningen. Patients on the waiting list and healthy subjects were assessed twice, with a 2-week interval between assessments. Intra-class correlation (ICC) was calculated as a measure of reliability. An ICC ≥0.75 was considered as an acceptable reliability. Limits of agree­ment as a measure for natural variation were calculated.
Results: The psychophysical static and dynamic lift capacity tests showed good reliability (ICC ≥0.75). The limits of agreement are substantial, indicating a considerable natural varia­tion between test-sessions for all psychophysical tests.
Conclusion: The psychophysical static lift capacity and dyna­mic lifting capacity are reliable instruments for patients with non-specific chronic low back pain and healthy subjects. How­ever, a substantial amount of natural variation should be taken into account between 2 test sessions when interpreting the test results clinically.

Authors:

Audy P. Hodselmans, Pieter U. Dijkstra, Cees van der Schans and Jan H. B. Geertzen

Key words:

reproducibility of results, low back pain, psychophysical capacity.

References

  1. Simmonds MJ, Olson SL, Jones S, Hussein T, Lee CE, Novy D, et al. Psychometric characteristics and clinical usefulness of physical performance test in patients with low back pain. Spine 1994; 19: 2759–2765.
  2. Battie MC, Cherkin DC, Dunn R, Ciol MA, Wheeler KJ. Managing low back pain: attitudes and treatment preferences of physical therapists. Phys Ther 1994; 74: 219–226.
  3. Novy DM, Simmonds MJ, Lee CE. Physical performance tasks: what are the underlying constructs. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 44–47. 
.
  4. Stratford PW, Binkley J, Soloman P. Defining the minimal level of change for the Roland Morris Questionnaire. Phys Ther 1996; 76: 359–365. 
.
  5. Magee DM, editor. Orthopedic physical assessment. 2nd edn. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1992.
  6. Potter NA, Rothstein JM. Intertester reliability for selected clinical tests of the sacroiliac joint. Phys Ther 1985; 65: 1671–1675.
  7. Simmonds MJ, Kumar S, Health care ergonomics: part 2 location of body structures by palpation. A reliability study. Int J Ind 
Ergonomics 1993; 11: 145–151. Link to article
  8. Newton M, Thow M, Somerville D, Henderson I, Waddell G. Trunk strength testing with iso-machines: part 2 experimental evaluation of the Cybex 2 back testing system in normal subjects and patients with chronic low back pain. Spine 1993; 18: 812–824.
  9. Brouwer S, editor. Disability in chronic low back pain. Psychometric properties of ADL- and work-related instruments. Dissertation. Groningen: University of Groningen; 2004.
  10. Verbunt J, editor. Disuse and physical deconditioning in chronic low back pain. Dissertation. Maastricht: University of Maastricht; 2004.
  11. Jillings-Rohaan JJ, Gorter MJ, Buurke JH, Baten CTM, Hermens HJ. [Rugscholing in een revalidaticentrum]. Back Education in Rehabilitation Centre. Ned Tijdschr voor Fysiotherapie 1997; 1: 14–18. (In Dutch).
  12. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of low back pain. Spine 1983; 8: 141–150. Link to article
  13. Gommans IHB, Koes BW. [Validiteit en responsiviteit Nederlandstalige Roland Disability Questionnaire]. Validity and Responsiveness of the Dutch Roland Disability Questionnaire. Ned Tijdschr voor Fysiotherapie 1997; 2: 28–33. (In Dutch).
  14. Fordyce WE, Lansky D, Calshyn DA, Shelton JL, Stolov WC, Rock DL. Pain measurement and pain behaviour. Pain 1984; 18: 53–69. Link to article
  15. Cunha IT, Simmonds MJ, Protas EJ, Jones S. Back pain, physical function and estimates of aerobic capacity: what are the relation
ships among methods and measures? Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 81: 913–920.
  16. Hodselmans AP, Jaegers SM, Göeken LNH. Short-term outcomes of a back school program for chronic low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 1099–1105.
  17. Khalil TM, Goldberg ML, Asfour SS, Moty EA, Rosomoff RS, Rosomoff HL. Acceptable Maximum Effort (AME). A psycho
physical measure of strength in back pain patients. Spine 1987; 12: 372–376. Link to article
  18. Hildebrandt J, Pfingsten M, Sauer P, Jansen J. Prediction of success from a multidisciplinairy treatment program for chronic low back pain. Spine 1997; 22: 990–1001. Link to article
  19. Chaffin DB, Herrin GD, Moroe Keyserling W. Pre-employment strength testing; an updated position. J Occuo Med 1978; 20: 403–408.
  20. Genaidy AM. Spinal compression tolerance limits for the design of manual material handling operations in the workplace. Ergonomics 1993; 36: 415–434. Link to article
  21. Borg G. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exercise 1982; 14: 377–381.
  22. Troup JDG, Foreman T, Baxter C, Brown D. The perception of back pain and the role of psychophysical tests of lifting capacity. Spine 1987; 12: 645–657. Link to article
  23. Mayer TG, Barnes D, Kishino ND, Nichols G, Gathcel RJ, Mayer H, et al. Progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation: 1. A standardized protocol and normative database. Spine 1988; 13: 993–997. 
. Link to article
  24. Mayer TG, Barnes D, Nichols G, Kishino ND, Coval K, Piel B, et al. Progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation: 2. A comparison with isokinetic lifting in a disabled chronic low-back pain industrial population. Spine 1988; 13: 998–1002. Link to article
  25. Fox S. Physical activity and the prevention of coronary heart disease. Ann Clin Res 1971; 3: 404–432.
  26. Waters TE. Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual tasks. Ergonomics 1993; 7: 749–776.
  27. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measurement error. BMJ 1996; 313: 744.
  28. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 8: 307–310. 
.
  29. Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician 1983; 32: 307–317. 
. Link to article
  30. Lee J, Koh D, Ong CN. Statistical evaluation of agreement between two methods for measuring quantitative variables. Com Biol Med 1989; 19: 61–70. Link to article
  31. Tammemagi MC, Frank JW, LeBlanc M, Artsob H, Streiner DL. Methodological issues in assessing reproducibility – a comparative study of various indices of reproducibility applied to repeat ELISA serological tests for Lyme disease. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 1123–1132. Link to article
  32. Altman DG, editor. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.
  33. Evans WJ, Cayten CG, Green PA, Determining the generalizability of rating scales in clinical settings. Med Care 1981; 19: 1211–1220.
  34. Brox JI, Storheim K, Holm I, Friis A, Reikeras O. Disability, pain, psychological factors and physical performance in healthy controls, patients with sub-acute and chronic low back pain: a case-control study. J Rehabil Med 2005; 37: 95–99.