here - The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy

on successive measurements or estimates is termed within-tester agreement. The extent to which
different testers obtain similar values is termed between-testers agreement. If its quantitative
within-tester agreement is good (and it is otherwise valid), a test is useful for assessing a
condition’s severity (and its progress and outcome), providing the same person takes the
measurements. If its between-tester reliability is good (and it is otherwise valid), a test is useful for
such assessment even if different people take the measurements.
With respect to within-tester agreement, Tveita et al (2008) took measurements a week apart in 32
patients with contracted (frozen) shoulder of three months’ to two years’ duration, using a digital,
gravity-dependent measuring device (digital inclinometer). For measurements of rotation, their
patients lay supine with 45º of shoulder abduction. Based on their results, they estimated that, 95
times out of 100, a change in passive external rotation of > 13º would reflect real change; but that
any smaller change would be indistinguishable from measurement error.
Regarding between-testers agreement, de Winter et al (2004) conducted a study in which two
physiotherapists, again using a digital inclinometer, independently measured passive lateral
rotation in 155 patients with mixed-stage shoulder pain. Rotation was measured with patients lying
supine, and their elbows at their sides. In this sample, > 23º change in passive external rotation was
necessary to reflect real change 95 times out of 100. Terwee et al (2005) evaluated the agreement
between two independent physiotherapists’ visual estimates of joint angles in a sample of 201
patients with mixed-stage shoulder pain. Patients were seated for the test movements, passive
external rotation being tested with the elbow at the side. Visual estimation is standard practice for
many—probably most—clinicians, who work within tight time constraints, and testing is very often
done in an upright (sitting or standing) position, making the study particularly apposite. In their
sample, changes in passive external rotation had to equal or exceed 35º in order to reflect true
change 95 times out of 100, and Terwee et al observed that agreement was particularly low for
patients in severe pain and with major disability. Furthermore, Croft et al (1994), who evaluated
agreement on visual estimated ranges of shoulder movement between primary care physicians,
concluded ‘external rotation is poorly reproducible because of systematic variation in examination
technique and random variation in visual assessment’.
In individual clinical instances, agreement may be better or worse that demonstrated in the
foregoing studies’ samples. The key messages here are that passive external rotation is
fundamental to the diagnosis of contracted (frozen) shoulder, but an inexact tool for assessing the
condition’s severity, progress and outcome; and that, in so far as it is used in these capacities,
repeated measurements are more meaningful when taken by one tester than by several. Also, it
would be expected that standardised technique would probably enhance both within-tester and
between-testers reproducibility. Prerequisite to standardised technique are clear operational
definitions, such as whether the end point of movement is considered to be the maximum
attainable range or (more likely) the point at which pain occurs, increases or becomes intolerable;
and these definitions should be made explicit on patients’ records. Stabilisation of the scapula or
trunk is another important consideration and, especially if the test is performed in standing, great
care should be taken to prevent trunk rotation. We suggest that external rotation be tested with
the patient’s elbow at his or her side for optimal sensitivity to contracted (frozen) shoulder
(Harryman et al 1992, Rundquist et al 2003, Rundquist & Ludewig 2004). In this position (FIGURE
17