Reliability and validity study of Persian modified version of MUSIC (musculoskeletal intervention center) – Norrtalje questionnaire

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are a major health problem in the world. Self-reported questionnaires are a known method for estimating the prevalence of MSDs among the population. One of the studies concerning MSDs and their relation to work-related physical and psychosocial factors, as well as non-work-related factors, is the MUSIC-Norrtalje study in Sweden. In this study, the research group developed a questionnaire, which has been validated during its development process and is now considered a well-known instrument. The aim of this study is to validate the Persian version of this questionnaire.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The first step was to establish two expert panel groups in Iran and Sweden. The Focus Group Discussion (FGD) method was used to detect questionnaire face and content validity. To detect questionnaire reliability, we used the test-retest method.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Except for two items, all other questions that respondents had problems with in the focus group (20 of 297), had unclear translations; the ambiguity was related to the stem of the questions and the predicted answers were clear for the participants. The concepts of 'household/spare time' and 'physical activity in the workplace' were not understood by the participants of FGD; this has been solved by adding further descriptions to these phrases in the translation. In the test-retest study, the reliability coefficient was relatively high in most items (only 5 items out of 297 had an ICC or kappa below 0.7).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The findings from the present study provide evidence that the Persian version of the MUSIC questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument.</p

Validation of spinal motion with the spine reposition sense device

© 2009 Petersen and Rundquist; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Intra-rater reliability, measurement precision, and inter-test correlations of 1RM single-leg leg-press, knee-flexion, and knee-extension in uninjured adult agility-sport athletes: Considerations for right and left unilateral measurements in knee injury control

Objectives Knowledge of single-leg knee strength test reliability for the right and left limb is critical for between-limb clinical decision-making. Knowledge of between-test correlations is essential for understanding whether tests measure similar or different aspects of muscle strength. This study investigated the intra-rater, test-retest reliability and measurement precision of one repetition maximum (1RM) single-leg leg-press (LP), knee-flexion (KF), and knee-extension (KE) for both limbs, and inter-test correlations. Design Repeated measures; Setting University. Participants Six males, seven females (age 25.6±5.5yr; height 171.4±8.4cm; mass 71.8±13.4kg). Main outcome measures Normalised 1RM (percent body-mass (%BM)), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (Avery, 1995; Rivara, 2003), standard error of measurement (SEM; %BM), Pearson's correlation (r), coefficient of determination (r2). Results Mean 1RM test-retest values were (right, left): LP, 214.2–218.5%BM, 213.5–215.4%BM; KF, 35.9–38.9%BM, 37.7–38.2%BM; KE, 43.3–44.6%BM, 36.2–39.3%BM. The ICCs/SEMs were (right, left): LP, 0.98/7.3%BM, 0.94/14.2%BM; KF, 0.75/4.9%BM, 0.95/1.9%BM; KE, 0.87/3.4%BM, 0.78/4.4%BM. Correlations were significant (P < 0.01), r/r2 values were: LP-KF, 0.60/0.36; LP-KE, 0.59/0.35; KF-KE, 0.50/0.25. Conclusions Tests demonstrated good reliability and measurement precision, although ICCs and SEMs were different between limbs. Tests were correlated, but only one-third of the variance was shared between tests. Practitioners should be cognisant of between-limb differences in reliability and include all tests for knee clinical decision-making

International Olympic Committee consensus statement on pain management in elite athletes

Pain is a common problem among elite athletes and is frequently associated with sport injury. Both pain and injury interfere with the performance of elite athletes. There are currently no evidence-based or consensus-based guidelines for the management of pain in elite athletes. Typically, pain management consists of the provision of analgesics, rest and physical therapy. More appropriately, a treatment strategy should address all contributors to pain including underlying pathophysiology, biomechanical abnormalities and psychosocial issues, and should employ therapies providing optimal benefit and minimal harm. To advance the development of a more standardised, evidence-informed approach to pain management in elite athletes, an IOC Consensus Group critically evaluated the current state of the science and practice of pain management in sport and prepared recommendations for a more unified approach to this important topic

Understanding the Research Perspective: Basic, Applied, and Clinical Investigations

https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cop-facbooks/1176/thumbnail.jp