Objective: To investigate the validity of the spinal range of motion models outlined in the second and fourth editions of the American Medical Association Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment (AMA Guides), for assessing the percentage impairment in chronic low back pain patients.
Design: Cross-sectional validation study. Setting: Outpatient department in the Rehabilitation Medicine Unit. Subjects: A volunteer sample of 34 subjects participated in the study, 21 females and 13 males, with a mean age of 47.7 years (1 SD =12.1) and 40.1 years (1 SD = 11.1), respectively. Subjects had chronic low back with or without leg pain of at least six months’ duration. Subjects were recruited by medical practitioners and physiotherapists through the Rehabilitation Unit at the Essendon Campus of Royal Melbourne Hospital. Main outcome measures: Lower back range of motion measured with a long arm goniometer and a dual inclinometer, Waddell Physical Impairment Scale, Waddell Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index.
Results: Both range of motion measurement methods demonstrated poor validity and do not bear any consistent relationship to the level of physical or functional impairment in subjects with chronic low back pain.
Conclusions: There was no evidence for a relationship between low back range of motion and impairment, and thus it would appear illogical to evaluate impairment in chronic low back pain patients using a spinal range of motion model when aiming to measure or compensate disability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Medical Association. Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment, second edition. Chicago, IL: AMA, 1987: 52–59.
2.
American Medical Association. Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment, fourth edition. Chicago, IL: AMA, 1993: 112–130.
3.
Stewart DL, Abeln SH. Documenting functional outcomes in physical therapy, first edition. St. Louis: Mosby, 1993.
4.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps. Geneva: WHO, 1980.
5.
Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. Norwalk, Connecticut: Appleton & Lange, 1993: 439–456.
6.
Mayer TG. Assessment of lumbar function. Clin Orthop1987; 221: 99–109.
7.
Waddell G. Clinical assessment of lumbar impairment. Clin Orthop1987; 221: 110–120.
8.
Clark WL, Haldeman S, Johnson P et al. Back impairment and disability determination. Another attempt at objective, reliable rating. Spine1988; 13: 332–341.
9.
Marras WS, Parnianpour M, Ferguson SA, Kim JY, Crowell RR, Simon SR. Quantification and classification of low back disorders based on trunk motion. Eur J Phys Med Rehabil1993; 3: 218–235.
10.
Battie MC, Bigos SJ, Fischer LD et al. The role of spinal flexibility in back pain complaints within industry. Spine1990; 15: 768–773.
11.
Waddell G, Somerville D, Henderson I, Newton M. Objective clinical evaluation of physical impairment in chronic low back pain. Spine1992; 17: 617–628.
12.
Lowery WD, Horn TJ, Boden SD, Wiesel SW. Impairment evalution based on spinal range of motion in normal subjects. J Spinal Dis1992; 5: 398–402.
13.
Fairbank JCT, Davies J, Couper J, O’Brien J. The Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Physiotherapy1980; 66: 271–273.
14.
Greenough CG, Fraser RD. Assessment of outcome in patients with low-back pain. Spine1992; 17: 36–41.
15.
Gronblad M, Hupli M, Wennerstrand P et al. Intercorrelation and test–retest reliability of the pain disability index (PDI) and the Oswestry disability questionnaire and their correlation with pain intensity in low back pain patients. Clin J Pain1993; 9: 189–195.
16.
Waddell G, Main CJ, Morris EW. Normality and reliability in clinical assessment of backache. BMJ1982; 284: 1519–1523.
17.
Nitschke J, Nattrass C, Disler P, Chou M, Ooi K. Reliability of AMA Guides spinal range of motion model: Its implication for whole person impairment rating. Spine1999; 24: 262–268.
