Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association logoLink to The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association
. 1988 Sep;32(3):133–138.

Several strategies for evaluating the objectivity of measurements in clinical research and practice

Joseph C Keating Jr
PMCID: PMC2484472

Abstract

The objectivity (interexaminer reliability) of measurement in chiropractic provides a basis for judging the quality of information in clinical research and practice. Objectivity may be determined by formal measurement evaluation studies and by sampling within clinical trials. Interpretation of inter-examiner reliability requires descriptive and inferential statistics selected on the basis of the mathematical properties of data, appreciation of the clinical meaning of a particular measure, and recognition of the role of chance. Methods of data analysis include scatter-plots, contingency tables, time-series graphs, and correlational and concordance coefficients. Many kinds of objectivity evaluations are well within the capacities of private practitioners and student clinicians.

Keywords: measurement, objectivity, reliability, chiropractic

Full text

PDF
133

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Boone D. C., Azen S. P., Lin C. M., Spence C., Baron C., Lee L. Reliability of goniometric measurements. Phys Ther. 1978 Nov;58(11):1355–1360. doi: 10.1093/ptj/58.11.1355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. DeBoer K. F., Harmon R. O., Jr, Savoie S., Tuttle C. D. Inter- and intra-examiner reliability of leg-length differential measurement: a preliminary study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1983 Jun;6(2):61–66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Deboer K. F., Harmon R., Jr, Tuttle C. D., Wallace H. Reliability study of detection of somatic dysfunctions in the cervical spine. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1985 Mar;8(1):9–16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fitzgerald G. K., Wynveen K. J., Rheault W., Rothschild B. Objective assessment with establishment of normal values for lumbar spinal range of motion. Phys Ther. 1983 Nov;63(11):1776–1781. doi: 10.1093/ptj/63.11.1776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Frost M., Stuckey S., Smalley L. A., Dorman G. Reliability of measuring trunk motions in centimeters. Phys Ther. 1982 Oct;62(10):1431–1437. doi: 10.1093/ptj/62.10.1431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hartmann D. P. Considerations in the choice of interobserver reliability estimates. J Appl Behav Anal. 1977 Spring;10(1):103–116. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1977.10-103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Jackson B. L., Barker W., Bentz J., Gambale A. G. Inter- and intra-examiner reliability of the upper cervical X-ray marking system: a second look. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1987 Aug;10(4):157–163. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kazdin A. E. Artifact, bias, and complexity of assessment: the ABCs of reliability. J Appl Behav Anal. 1977 Spring;10(1):141–150. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1977.10-141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Keating J. C., Jr, Giljum K., Menke J. M., Lonczak R. S., Meeker W. C. Toward an experimental chiropractic: time-series designs. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1985 Dec;8(4):229–238. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Keating J. C., Jr, Seville J., Meeker W. C., Lonczak R. S., Quitoriano L. A., Dydo M., Leibel D. P. Intrasubject experimental designs in osteopathic medicine: applications in clinical practice. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1985 Mar;85(3):192–203. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Keeley J., Mayer T. G., Cox R., Gatchel R. J., Smith J., Mooney V. Quantification of lumbar function. Part 5: Reliability of range-of-motion measures in the sagittal plane and an in vivo torso rotation measurement technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1986 Jan-Feb;11(1):31–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kelly M. B. A review of the observational data-collection and reliability procedures reported in The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. J Appl Behav Anal. 1977 Spring;10(1):97–101. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1977.10-97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kratochwill T. R., Wetzel R. J. Observer agreement, credibility, and judgment: some considerations in presenting observer agreement data. J Appl Behav Anal. 1977 Spring;10(1):133–139. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1977.10-133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Love R. M., Brodeur R. R. Inter- and intra-examiner reliability of motion palpation for the thoracolumbar spine. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1987 Feb;10(1):1–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Maclure M., Willett W. C. Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic. Am J Epidemiol. 1987 Aug;126(2):161–169. doi: 10.1093/aje/126.2.161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Mayerson N. H., Milano R. A. Goniometric measurement reliability in physical medicine. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1984 Feb;65(2):92–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Phillips R. B., Frymoyer J. W., Mac Pherson B. V., Newburg A. H. Low back pain: a radiographic enigma. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1986 Sep;9(3):183–187. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Reynolds P. M. Measurement of spinal mobility: a comparison of three methods. Rheumatol Rehabil. 1975 Aug;14(3):180–185. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/14.3.180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Schnelle J. F., Traughber B., Morgan D. B., Embry J. E., Binion A. F., Coleman A. Management of geriatric incontinence in nursing homes. J Appl Behav Anal. 1983 Summer;16(2):235–241. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1983.16-235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Sigler D. C., Howe J. W. Inter- and intra-examiner reliability of the upper cervical X-ray marking system. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1985 Jun;8(2):75–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Vernon H. An assessment of the intra- and inter-reliability of the posturometer. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1983 Jun;6(2):57–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association are provided here courtesy of The Canadian Chiropractic Association

RESOURCES