Reliability, construct and discriminative validity of clinical testing in subjects with and without chronic neck pain.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The reliability of clinical tests for the cervical spine has not been adequately evaluated. Six cervical clinical tests, which are low cost and easy to perform in clinical settings, were tested for intra- and inter-examiner reliability, and two performance tests were assessed for test-retest reliability in people with and without chronic neck pain. Moreover, construct and between-group discriminative validity of the tests were examined.Methods
Twenty-one participants with chronic neck pain and 21 asymptomatic participants were included. Intra- and inter-reliability were evaluated for the Cranio-Cervical Flexion Test (CCFT), Range of Movement (ROM), Joint Position Error (JPE), Gaze Stability (GS), Smooth Pursuit Neck Torsion Test (SPNTT), and neuromuscular control of the Deep Cervical Extensors (DCE). Test-retest reliability was assessed for Postural Control (SWAY) and Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) over tibialis anterior, infraspinatus and the C3-C4 segment.Results
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for intra- and inter-examiner reliability was highest for ROM (range: 0.80 to 0.94), DCE (0.75 to 0.90) and CCFT (0.63 to 0.86). JPE had the lowest ICC (0.02 to 0.66). Intra- and inter-reliability for GS and SPNTT showed kappa ranging from 0.66 to 0.92, and 0.57 to 0.78 (prevalence adjusted), respectively. For the test-retest study, ICC was 0.83 to 0.89 for PPT and 0.39 to 0.79 for SWAY. Construct validity was satisfactory for all tests, except JPE. Significant between group discriminative validity was found for CCFT, ROM, GS, SPNTT and PPT, however, differences were within the limits of the minimal detectable change.Conclusions
The majority of the tests evaluated showed satisfactory reliability and construct validity supporting their use in the clinical evaluation of patients with chronic neck pain.
SUBMITTER: Jorgensen R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4325947 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundHead-eye movement control deficit is an identified problem in patients with chronic neck pain, particularly in cases of whiplash associated disorders (WAD). To date, there is no evidence concerning the reliability and validity of visually assessed active head-eye movement control tests. Therefore, the objectives of the present cross-sectional study were, a) to develop a test battery; and b) to investigate inter-observer reliability and discriminative validity in patients with chronic neck pain compared to healthy controls.MethodsThe study was conducted at two physiotherapy clinics in Switzerland. Ethics Committee approval was obtained. Ten active head-eye coordination tests, on 23 patients with chronic neck pain and associated symptoms and 19 healthy controls, were videotaped. The tests included eye movements in the neutral head position and 45° relative neck rotation, gaze stability and sequential head-eye movements. All tests were performed in the sitting and standing positions. Two blinded physiotherapists independently rated the randomized videos. Performance was rated as "negative", "moderately positive" or "clearly positive". Weighted kappa (wK) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to investigate inter-observer reliability. Good reliability was defined as wK >0.5 with a lower boundary of 95% CI >0.2. Odds ratios (to define cut-off points) and the distribution of the classificator, numbers of positive tests, were calculated.ResultsThree out of ten tests showed "excellent" (wK 0.82 to 0.86), five out of ten tests showed "substantial" (wK 0.69 to 0.79) and two out of ten tests showed "moderate" (wK 0.54 to 0.59) reliability. Results were comparable in the sitting and standing positions. On average, three out of five tests were rated positive in patients and one out of five tests was rated positive in healthy controls. An odds ratio of 13.3 to 18.6 was obtained using ?2/5 tests as a cut-off point.ConclusionVisual assessment by physiotherapists of head-eye movement control tests is reliable. The test battery is able to discriminate between patients with chronic neck pain and healthy controls. There were no differences in performance between the sitting and standing positions. The test battery can therefore be reduced to five tests. Further research is needed to identify the test-retest stability and responsiveness.
| S-EPMC3893395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The cervical range of motion device (CROM) has been shown to provide reliable forward head position (FHP) measurement when the upper cervical angle (UCA) is controlled. However, measurement without UCA standardization is reflective of habitual patterns. Criterion validity has not been reported. The purposes of this study were to establish: (1) criterion validity of CROM FHP and UCA compared to Optotrak data, (2) relative reliability and minimal detectable change (MDC95) in patients with and without cervical pain, and (3) to compare UCA and FHP in patients with and without pain in habitual postures.(1) Within-subjects single session concurrent criterion validity design. Simultaneous CROM and OP measurement was conducted in habitual sitting posture in 16 healthy young adults. (2) Reliability and MDC95 of UCA and FHP were calculated from three trials. (3) Values for adults over 35 years with cervical pain and age-matched healthy controls were compared.(1) Forward head position distances were moderately correlated and UCA angles were highly correlated. The mean (standard deviation) differences can be expected to vary between 1·48 cm (1·74) for FHP and -1·7 (2·46)° for UCA. (2) Reliability for CROM FHP measurements were good to excellent (no pain) and moderate (pain). Cervical range of motion FHP MDC95 was moderately low (no pain), and moderate (pain). Reliability for CROM UCA measurements was excellent and MDC95 low for both groups. There was no difference in FHP distances between the pain and no pain groups, UCA was significantly more extended in the pain group (P<0·05).Cervical range of motion FHP measurements were only moderately correlated with Optotrak data, and limits of agreement (LOA) and MDC95 were relatively large. There was also no difference in CROM FHP distance between older symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Cervical range of motion FHP measurement is therefore not recommended as a clinical outcome measure. Cervical range of motion UCA measurements showed good criterion validity, excellent test-retest reliability, and achievable MDC95 in asymptomatic and symptomatic participants. Differences of more than 6° are required to exceed error. Cervical range of motion UCA shows promise as a useful reliable and valid measurement, particularly as patients with cervical pain exhibited significantly more extended angles.
| S-EPMC4727731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the 'Patient Enablement Instrument', we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects.MethodsThe PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N = 14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D® Back cohort (N = 272) and the test-retest cohort (N = 37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire-physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain.ResultsThe PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population.ConclusionsThe PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended.Trial registrationNot applicable.
| S-EPMC8033700 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with chronic pain often complain about cognitive difficulties, and since these symptoms represent an additional source of suffering and distress, evaluating the cognitive status of these patients with valid and reliable tests should be an important part of their overall assessment. Although cognitive impairment is a critical characteristic of pain, there is no specific measure designed to detect these effects in this population. The objective was to analyze the psychometric properties of the "Test Your Memory" (TYM) test in patients with chronic pain of three different origins. A cross-sectional study was carried out on 72 subjects free of pain and 254 patients suffering from different types of chronic pain: neuropathic pain (104), musculoskeletal pain (99) and fibromyalgia (51). The construct validity of the TYM was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADs), Index-9 from MOS-sleep, SF-12, and through the intensity (Visual Analogical Scale) and duration of pain. An exploratory factor analysis was also performed and internal reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. After adjusting for potential confounders the TYM could distinguish between pain and pain-free patients, and it was correlated with the: MMSE (0.89, p<0.001); HAD-anxiety (-0.50, p<0.001) and HAD-depression scales (-0.52, p<0.001); MOS-sleep Index-9 (-0.49, p<0.001); and the physical (0.49, p < .001) and mental components (0.55, p < .001) of SF-12. The exploratory structure of the TYM showed an 8-factor solution that explained 53% of the variance, and Cronbach's alpha was 0.66. The TYM is a valid and reliable screening instrument to assess cognitive function in chronic pain patients that will be of particular value in clinical situations.
| S-EPMC4847905 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND CONTEXT:The US National Pain Strategy focused attention on high-impact chronic pain and its restrictions. Although many interventions have been studied for chronic low-back pain, results are typically reported for heterogeneous samples. To better understand chronic pain and target interventions to those who most need care, more granular classifications recognizing chronic pain's impact are needed. PURPOSE:To test whether chronic pain impact levels can be identified in chronic low-back pain clinical trial samples, examine the baseline patient mix across studies, and evaluate the construct validity of high-impact chronic pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING:Descriptive analyses using 12 large study datasets. PATIENT SAMPLES:Chronic low-back pain patients in nonsurgical, nonpharmacologic trials in the US, Canada, and UK. OUTCOME MEASURES:Preference-based health utilities from the SF-6D and EQ-5D, employment status and absenteeism. METHODS:We used two logistic regression models to predict whether patients had high-impact chronic pain and whether the remainder had low- or moderate-impact chronic pain. We developed these models using two datasets. Models with the best predictive power were used to impute impact levels for six other datasets. Stratified by these estimated chronic pain impact levels, we characterized the case mix of patients at baseline in each dataset, and summarized their health-utilities and work productivity. This study was funded by a National Center for Complementary and Integrative Medicine grant. The authors have no potential conflicts of interest. RESULTS:The logistic models had excellent predictive power to identify those with high-impact chronic pain. Although studies were all of chronic low-back pain patients, the baseline mix of patients varied widely. Across all datasets, utilities, and productivity were similar for those with high-impact chronic pain and worsened as chronic pain impact increased. CONCLUSIONS:There is a need to better categorize chronic pain patients to allow the targeting of optimal interventions for those with each level of chronic pain impact.
| S-EPMC6760858 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A composite pain scale for assessing and quantifying pain in rabbits (CANCRS) has been designed merging the Rabbit Grimace Scale (RbtGS) and a scale including clinical parameters (CPS). Construct validity and inter-rater reliability were assessed for CANCRS, for RbtGS and for CPS, in order to test their potential to detect pain in a clinical setting. Rabbits (n = 116) were either hybrids or purebreds and they were independently evaluated by two raters, who could be veterinarians (V) or veterinary medicine students (S). Score intervals determined four pain classes (No pain, Discomfort, Moderate pain and Severe pain) that matched presumptive pain classes associated with some pathological conditions. A chi-square test was used to assess the construct validity of the scales by checking how frequently scale results and presumptive pain classes matched. Sixty-nine patients were evaluated by one V and one S, whereas forty-seven rabbits were assessed by two V, in order to test inter-rater reliability. An intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to test reliability of the scales, whereas Cohen's kappa tested inter-rater agreement for each parameter of the CANCRS. Construct validity results show that CANCRS and RbtGS efficiently reveal pain (P ? 0.05), while CPS does not (p > 0.05). Inter-rater reliability was very good for both CANCRS and CPS (ICC 0.88 V-V, 0.94 between V-S; ICC 0.97 V-V, 0.91 V-S) and good for RbtGS (ICC 0.77 V-V, 0.88 V-S); therefore, CPS reproducibility was better between veterinarians and students than between veterinarians. Inter-rater agreement between veterinarians and veterinary medicine students was moderate to very good for all the parameters included in the CANCRS (Cohen's kappa >0,60). In conclusion, it is possible to state that the CANCRS has construct validity and it is a reliable tool for use in clinical practice, when coping with many rabbits with morphological differences. It is easy and fast to use and enriches the RbtGS with some clinical parameters that should be monitored during any clinical examination, allowing for capture of the multidimensional aspect of pain.
| S-EPMC7192371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe Duchenne Video Assessment (DVA) assesses quality of movement as an indication of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) disease severity. Caregivers video record patients performing home-based movement tasks using a mobile application, and physical therapists (PTs) rate the videos using scorecards with prespecified compensatory movement criteria. Reliability and construct validity of the DVA were tested using video and Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument (PODCI) data from patients with DMD and healthy controls from a separate study.MethodsFifteen PTs were trained and certified as DVA raters. All raters scored videos of five subjects performing each movement task; nine raters rescored the same videos four weeks later. Three raters scored videos from an average of 25 subjects for each movement task. Aggregate scores were used to test construct validity. An expert DMD clinician assigned each video to a severity group for known-groups analyses. Differences between rater scores across severity groups were tested and correlations between DVA and PODCI scores were calculated.ResultsInter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) between all 15 raters ranged from 0.70 to 0.97 for all movement tasks. Mean intra-rater reliability ICC for nine raters ranged from 0.82 to 0.98 for all movement tasks. There were statistically significant differences between known severity groups for all movement tasks. The DVA correlated strongly with related PODCI constructs of physical function and weakly with unrelated constructs.DiscussionThe DVA was found to be a reliable and valid tool for measuring quality of movement as an indication of disease severity.
| S-EPMC8361683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study was to validate the construct and reliability of an instrument to assess the work environment as a single tool based on quality of life (QL), quality of work life (QWL), and organizational climate (OC). The methodology tested the construct validity through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and reliability through Cronbach's alpha. The EFA returned a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value of 0.917; which demonstrated that the data were adequate for the factor analysis; and a significant Bartlett's test of sphericity (χ² = 7465.349; Df = 1225; p ≤ 0.000). After the EFA; the varimax rotation method was employed for a factor through commonality analysis; reducing the 14 initial factors to 10. Only question 30 presented commonality lower than 0.5; and the other questions returned values higher than 0.5 in the commonality analysis. Regarding the reliability of the instrument; all of the questions presented reliability as the values varied between 0.953 and 0.956. Thus; the instrument demonstrated construct validity and reliability.
| S-EPMC7600521 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveA standardized tampon insertion and removal test, the Tampon Test provides an alternative to sexual intercourse pain as an outcome measure for vulvodynia research. We report upon the reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change of the Tampon Test as an outcome measure for vulvodynia clinical trials.MethodsOutcome measures were assessed in women enrolled in the Vulvar Vestibulitis Clinical Trial, a randomized clinical trial of oral desipramine and topical lidocaine effectiveness. Reliability estimates of the Tampon Test using the Kappa statistic evaluated week-to-week measures at baseline. Tampon Test construct and discriminant validity were assessed through correlation with other outcome measures. Patients' ability to regularly perform the Tampon Test was compared with regularity of reporting intercourse pain.ResultsDuring the 2-week baseline phase, women with vulvodynia reported stable mean Tampon Test scores 4.6+/-2.6 (week -2); 4.6+/-2.7 (week -1); and 4.7+/-2.8 (week 0) with moderate week-to-week reliability (weighted Kappa 0.52). Over an 8-week phase of trial intervention, change in the Tampon Test measure significantly correlated to a number of outcome measures, including daily pain (r=0.42), intercourse pain (r=0.35), cotton swab vestibular pain (r=0.38), and the Brief Pain Inventory (r=0.49). Women with vulvodynia study participants performed the Tampon Test 96.3% of the requested time, which was twofold higher adherence than intercourse pain measurement (49.7%).ConclusionThe Tampon Test reflects a real life experience that is reliable, with good construct validity as shown by the breadth of correlated outcome measures. The Tampon Test is an appropriate outcome measure for vulvodynia research that can be considered for use as the primary efficacy endpoint in clinical trials of treatments for vulvodynia.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00276068Level of evidenceII.
| S-EPMC2756618 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Fully automated vehicles (AVs) hold promise toward providing numerous societal benefits including reducing road fatalities. However, we are uncertain about how individuals' perceptions will influence their ability to accept and adopt AVs. The 28-item Automated Vehicle User Perception Survey (AVUPS) is a visual analog scale that was previously constructed, with established face and content validity, to assess individuals' perceptions of AVs. In this study, we examined construct validity, via exploratory factor analysis and subsequent Mokken scale analyses. Next, internal consistency was assessed via Cronbach's alpha (α) and 2-week test-retest reliability was assessed via Spearman's rho (ρ) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The Mokken scale analyses resulted in a refined 20-item AVUPS and three Mokken subscales assessing specific domains of adults' perceptions of AVs: (a) Intention to use; (b) perceived barriers; and (c) well-being. The Mokken scale analysis showed that all item-coefficients of homogeneity (H) exceeded 0.3, indicating that the items reflect a single latent variable. The AVUPS indicated a strong Mokken scale (H scale = 0.51) with excellent internal consistency (α = 0.95) and test-retest reliability (ρ = 0.76, ICC = 0.95). Similarly, the three Mokken subscales ranged from moderate to strong (range H scale = 0.47-0.66) and had excellent internal consistency (range α = 0.84-0.94) and test-retest reliability (range ICC = 0.84-0.93). The AVUPS and three Mokken subscales of AV acceptance were validated in a moderate sample size (N = 312) of adults living in the United States. Two-week test-retest reliability was established using a subset of Amazon Mechanical Turk participants (N = 84). The AVUPS, or any combination of the three subscales, can be used to validly and reliably assess adults' perceptions before and after being exposed to AVs. The AVUPS can be used to quantify adults' acceptance of fully AVs.
| S-EPMC7868437 | biostudies-literature