Abstract
Objective
Establishing objective descriptive data regarding manual muscle testing (MMT) as used in Applied Kinesiology, including “patient-started” versus “examiner- started” variations, is necessary before research pertaining to the reliability and clinical significance of this procedure is done. This study measured surface electromyography (sEMG) output from experienced MMT practitioners and their tested subjects during the performance of sequential MMT on the same muscle during 3 styles of MMT: normally-done, examiner-started and patient-started.
Methods
21 examiners experienced in MMT and 24 subjects with varying degrees of exposure to MMT were engaged in the study. sEMG was simultaneously recorded from examiner and subject during testing of the middle deltoid muscle. The examiner first tested the middle deltoid muscle of the subject in his/her normal fashion 3 times and identified the MMT style as “examiner-started” or “patient-started.” He/she was then asked to perform the other method of MMT. If the examiner said he/she did not know or did not differentiate which form of testing was initially done, he/she then performed one series each of examiner- and patient started MMT.
Results
Nine (approximately 43 %) of testers identified their “normally done” muscle test as examiner-started, 4 (19%) as patient-started and 8 (38%) as simultaneous or undifferentiated. In 64.5% of the MMT described as examiner started, sEMG showed that the examiner's contraction started before the patient's. In tests identified as patient started, 54% were indeed patient started. Undifferentiated tests were 45% patient-started, 45% examiner started and 10% exactly simultaneous. Near simultaneous contractions were observed in 55% of all tracings evaluated and 70% of undifferentiated tests.
Conclusions
While many MMT practitioners consider that they are performing either an examiner- or patient-started muscle test, a significant number do not make this distinction routinely. The majority of testers in this study did near-simultaneous testing regardless of label. Examiner and subject start times alone, as measured by sEMG, did not clearly differentiate between theorized forms of manual muscle testing.
Key Indexing Terms: Chiropractic, Muscles, Electromyography
Footnotes
Sources of Support: This study was funded by the International College of AK – USA Chapter.
References
- 1.Lovett RW, Martin EG. Certain aspects of infantile paralysis with a description of a method of muscle testing. JAMA. 1916;66:729–733. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kendall HO, Kendall FP, Wadsworth G. Muscles: testing and function. 1st ed. Williams and Wilkins; Baltimore: 1949. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kendall FP, McCreary EK, Provance PG. Muscles: testing and function. 4th ed. Williams and Wilkins; Baltimore: 1993. p. 185. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Goodheart G. Applied Kinesiology. the author; Grosse Pointe Woods, MI: 1964. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Christensen MG, Kerkoff D, Kollach MW. Job analysis of chiropractic, 2000: a project report, survey analysis, and summary of chiropractic practice in the United States. National Board of Chiropractic Examiners; Greeley, CO: 2000. p. 129. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Caruso W, Leisman G. A force/displacement analysis of muscle testing. Percept Mot Skills. 2000;91:683–692. doi: 10.2466/pms.2000.91.2.683. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Caruso W, Leisman G. The clinical utility of force/displacement analysis of muscle testing in applied kinesiology. Int J Neurosci. 2001;106:147–157. doi: 10.3109/00207450109149745. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Leisman G, Zenhausern R, Ferentz A, Tefera T, Zemcov A. Electromyographic effects of fatigue and task repetition on the validity of estimates of strong and weak muscles in applied kinesiological muscletesting procedures. Percept Mot Skills. 1995;80:963–977. doi: 10.2466/pms.1995.80.3.963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Marino M, Nicholas JA, Gleim GW, Rosenthal P, Nicholas SJ. The efficacy of manual assessment of muscle strength using a new device. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10:360–364. doi: 10.1177/036354658201000608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Nicholas JA, Hershman EB. The lower extremity and spine in sports medicine. In: Nicholas JA, Hershman EB, editors. Evaluation of strength and local muscle endurance. 1st ed. Mosby Year Book; St. Louis: 1986. p. 128. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Rarick L, Gross K, Mohns MJ. Comparison of two methods of measuring strength of selected muscle groups in children. Res Quarterly. 1955;26:74–79. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Walther D. AK synopsis. 2nd ed. Systems DC; Pueblo, CO: 2000. p. 305. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lawson A, Calderon L. Interexaminer agreement for AK manual muscle testing. Percept Mot Skills. 1997;84:539–546. doi: 10.2466/pms.1997.84.2.539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hsieh C, Phillips RB. Reliability of manual muscle testing with a computerized dynamometer. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1990;13:72–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Schmitt WH. Muscle testing as functional neurology: differentiating functional upper motor-neuron and functional lower motor-neuron problems. Selected Papers of the International College of Applied Kinesiology. 1986:21–32. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Gerz W. Quality muscle testing. Proceedings of the International College of Applied Kinesiology USA 1995–1996. Shawnee Mission, Kansas: ICAK-USA; 1996.
- 17.Baker DC. Review of the AK muscle testing process. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International College of Applied Kinesiology USA; 2003; Shawnee Mission, Kansas: ICAK-USA; 2003. p. 69.
- 18.Chusid J, McDonald JJ. Correlative neuroanatomy and functional neurology. Lange Medical Publications; Los Altos, CA: 1967. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Chusid J. Correlative neuroanatomy and functional neurology. Appleton-Century-Crofts; East Norwalk, CT: 1985. p. 205. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Nicholas Ja, Sapega A, Kraus H, Webb JN. Factors influencing manual muscle tests in physical therapy, the magnitude and duration of force applied. J Bone Joint Surg. 1978;60A:186–190. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Perot C, Meldener R, Goubel F. Objective measurement of proprioceptive technique consequences on muscular maximum voluntary contraction during manual muscle testing. Aggressologie. 1991;32:471–474. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Colloca CJ, Keller TS. Electromyographic reflex responses to mechanical force, manually assisted spinal manipulative therapy. Spine. 2001;26:1117–1124. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200105150-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Vasilyeva LF, Chernysheva TN, Korenbaum VI, Aukhtina TP. About peculiarities of the effect of muscle functional weakness. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International College of Applied Kinesiology USA; 2002; Shawnee Mission, Kansas: ICAK-USA; 2002. p. 63–6.