Abstract
M.Tech.
It has been well documented in literature that at least 80% of the general population will suffer from lower back pain or dysfunction at one stage in their lives. Recent literature suggests Sacroiliac joint dysfunction to be a common cause of lower back pain. Clinical interest in the dysfunction and the consequences of this joint being a major cause of lower back pain is growing, as more biomechanical clinicians are finding Sacroiliac joint disorders to be a common occurrence in clinical practice (Pool-Goudzwaard, Vleeming, Stoekart, Snijders and Mens, 1998).
Sacroiliac syndrome is characterised by loss of joint play or altered mobility in the Sacroiliac joint‟s range of motion, and is usually associated with altered structural relationships in the region of the Sacroiliac joint (Grieve, 2001). This loss of normal movement is often adjusted by Chiropractors to regain normal mobility, however the correct diagnosis of the loss of mobility is required to induce the correct treatment.
Motion palpation has been scrutinised by many researchers who widely questioned its inter-tester reliability. As yet there has been no consensus as to a „gold standard‟ for motion palpation of the Sacroiliac joint. This study aims to reconfirm the inter-examiner reliability of two such motion palpation tests, i.e. Gillet‟s motion palpation and the Standing Flexion test.
One hundred participants underwent a double blind experimental study where the results from eight different examiners were recorded to obtain the reliability of the tests. Four examiners tested the participants using Gillet‟s motion palpation and four examiners used the Standing Flexion test. The results were recorded as either right, left or no restriction. The results were then compared and correlated.
There was no statistically significant reliability found in either of the two tests. The mean reliability for the Standing Flexion test was found to be 59.31% while the Gillet‟s Motion Palpation produced a mean reliability of 56.38%. These two values are considerably lower than the expected 80% indicating low reliability between the two tests.