The Modified – Modified Schober Test for range of motion assessment of lumbar flexion in patients with low back pain: A study of criterion validity, intra- and inter-rater reliability and minimum metrically detectable change

References

• World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. In: (eds) www.who.int/icf: 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Stucki G, Ewert T, Cieza A. Value and application of the ICF in rehabilitation medicine. Disability and Rehabilitation 2002;24: 932–938.
   Google Scholar
• American Medical Association. Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. Chicago, IL; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Battie MC, Cherkin DC, Dunn R, Ciol MA, Wheeler KJ. Managing low back pain: attitudes and treatment pref-erences of physical therapists. Physical Therapy 1994;74: 219–226.
   Google Scholar
• Jette AM, Smith K, Haley SM, Davis KD. Physical therapy episodes of care for patients with low back pain. Physical Therapy 1994;74: 101–110; discussion 110–115.
   Google Scholar
• Nattrass CL, Nitschke JE, Disler PB, Chou MJ, Ooi KT. Lumbar spine range of motion as a measure of physical and functional impairment: an investigation of validity. Clinical Rehabilitation 1999;13: 211–218.
   Google Scholar
• Parks KA, Crichton KS, Goldford RJ, McGill SM. A comparison of lumbar range of motion and functional ability scores in patients with low back pain: assessment for range of motion validity. Spine 2003;28: 380–384.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan MS, Shoaf LD, Riddle DL. The relationship of lumbar flexion to disability in patients with low back pain. Physical Therapy 2000;80: 240–250.
   Google Scholar
• Dekker J, van Baar ME, Curfs EC, Kerssens JJ. Diagnosis and treatment in physical therapy: an investigation of their relation- ship. Physical Therapy 1993;73: 568–577; discussion 577–580.
   Google Scholar
• Hahne AJ, Keating JL, Keasting SC. Do within-session changes in pain intensity and range of motion predict between-session changes in patients with low back pain? Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2004;50: 17–23.
   Google Scholar
• Cole B, Finch E, Gowland C, Mayo N. Physical rehabilitation outcome measures. Toronto: Canadian Physiotherapy Asso- ciation in cooperation with Health and Welfare Canada; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Lovell FW, Rothstein JM, Personius WJ. Reliability of clinical measurements of lumbar lordosis taken with a flexirule. Physical Therapy 1989;69: 96–105.
   Google Scholar
• Hart DL Rose SJ. Reliability of noninvasive method for measuring the lumbar curve. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 1986;8: 180–184.
   Google Scholar
• Tillotson KM Burton AK. Noninvasive measurement of lumbar sagittal mobility. An assessment of the flexicurve technique. Spine 1991;16: 29–33.
   Google Scholar
• Burton AK. Regional lumbar sagittal mobility; measurement by flexicurves. Clinical Biomechanics 1986;1: 20–26.
   Google Scholar
• Moll J Wright V. Measurement of spinal movement. In: Jayson M, editor. The lumbar spine and back pain. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton Inc.; 1976. p 96.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer T, Tencer A, Kristoferson S, Mooney V. Use of noninvasive techniques for quantification of spinal range-of- motion in normal subjects and chronic low-back dysfunction patients. Spine 1984;9: 588–595.
   Google Scholar
• Keeley J, Mayer TG, Cox R. Quantification of lumbar function. Part 5: Reliability of range-of-motion measures in the saggittal plane and an in vivo torso rotation measurement technique. Spine 1986;11: 31–35.
   Google Scholar
• Saur PM, Ensink F-B, Frese K, Seeger D, Hildebrant J. Lumbar range of motion: reliability and validity on the inclinometer technique in the clinical measurement of trunk flexibility. Spine 1996;21: 1332–1338.
   Google Scholar
• Williams RM, Goldsmith CH, Minuk T. Validity of the double inclonometer method for measuring lumbar flexion. Physiotherapy Canada 1998;147–151.
   Google Scholar
• Williams R, Binkley J, Bloch R, Goldsmith CH, Minuk T. Reliability of the modified – modified Scho¨ ber and double inclonometer methods for measuring lumbar flexion and extension. Physical Therapy 1993;73: 26–37.
   Google Scholar
• van Adrichem JAM van der Korst JK. Assessment of the flexibility of the lumbar spine. Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology 1973;2: 87–91.
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds PMG. Measurement of spinal mobility: A compar- ison of three methods. Rheumatological Rehabilitation 1975;14: 180–185.
   Google Scholar
• Schober P. The lumbar vertebral column in backache. Munchener Medizinish Wochenschrift 1937;84: 336–338.
   Google Scholar
• Macrae IF Wright V. Measurement of back movement. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 1969;28: 584–589.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald GK, Wynveen KJ, Rheault W, Rothchild B. Objective assessment with establishment of normal values for lumbar spinal range of motion. Physical Therapy 1983;63: 1776–1781.
   Google Scholar
• Beattie P, Rothstein JM, Lamb RL. Reliability of the attraction method for measuring lumbar spine backward bending. Physical Therapy 1987;67: 364–369.
   Google Scholar
• Bo K, Hilde G, Storheim K. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of Cybex EDI 320 measuring spinal mobility. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science of Sports 1997;7: 140–143.
   Google Scholar
• Chiarello CM Savidge R. Interrater reliability of the Cybex EDI-320 and fluid goniometer in normals and patients with low back pain. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilita- tion 1993;74: 32–37.
   Google Scholar
• Newton M Waddell G. Reliability and validity of clinical measurement of the lumbar spine in patients with chronic low back pain. Physiotherapy 1991;77: 796–800.
   Google Scholar
• Breum J, Wiberg J, Bolton JE. Reliability and concurrent validity of the BROM II for measuring lumbar mobility. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 1995;18: 497–502.
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds PMG. Measurement of spinal mobility: A compar- ison of three methods. Rheumatology Rehabilitation 1975;14: 180–185.
   Google Scholar
• Miller SA, Mayer T, Cox R, Gatchel RJ. Reliability problems associated with the modified Schober technique for true lumbar flexion measurement. Spine 1992;17: 345–348.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer RS, Chen IH, Lavender SA, Trafimow JH, Andersson GB. Range of motion among examiners, subjects, and instruments. Spine 1995;20: 1489–1493.
   Google Scholar
• Norkin White DJ. Meaurement of joint motion: a guide to goniometry. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Colachis S Strohm B. Radiographic studies of cervical spine motion in normal subjects: Flexion and hyperextension. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1965;46: 753–760.
   Google Scholar
• Gajdosik R. Clinical measurement of range of motion: Review of goniometry emphasizing reliability and validity. Physical Therapy 1987;67: 1867–1872.
   Google Scholar
• Alund M Larsson S-E. Three-dimensional analysis of neck motion: A clinical method. Spine 1990;15: 87–91.
   Google Scholar
• Lind B, Sihlbom H, Nordwall A, Malchau H. Normal range of motion of the cervical spine. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1989;70: 692–695.
   Google Scholar
• Streiner DL Norman GR. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Hulley SB, Cumming SR. Designing clinical research. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Domholdt E. Physical therapy research: Principles and applications. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Shrout PE Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin 1979;86: 420–428.
   Google Scholar
• He´bert R, Spiegelhalter D, Brayne C. Setting the Minimal Metrically Detectable Change on Disability Rating Scales. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1997;78: 1305–1308.
   Google Scholar
• Strafford P. A note on reliability. Synapse – Newslatter of the Neurosciences Division 1996;XVI: 3–5.
   Google Scholar