Dr. A.L. Rosner reports, the study on manual muscle testing and therapy localization is progressing through the inter-examiner reliability phase, with the instrumentation phase (electromyography, electrogoniometery, vibromyography) given to the statisticians in late May. Congratulations, to Dr. Rosner and team for this quality research effort.
Dr. Rosner reported the following to the Board of International College of Applied Kinesiology in early May.
For the Therapy Localization II trial, some preliminary finds have been transmitted by our statistician with the bulk of date (including all that from the instrumentation) to follow later in May:
For all investigators taken together, differentiations between strong and weak MMs were significant for all tests on the deltoid and hamstring muscles
For all investigators taken together, differentiations between the absence vs. presence of TL was significant for all tests on the deltoid and hamstring muscles
For all investigators taken together, differentiations between the absence vs. presence of neck and shoulder injury was significant for all tests on the deltoid and hamstring muscles
However, for the deltoid testing, a significant differences emerges between Eugene Charles and Mike Minond, while no differences exist between Eugene Charles and Mathew Keschner or between Mike Minond and Mathew Keschner
However, for the hamstring testing, significant differences emerge between Eugene Charles and Mike Minond as well as between Eugene Charles and Mathew Keschner, while no differences exist between Mathew Keschner and Mike Minond.
The fact that some instances appeared in which examiners did not agree – in contrast to the findings of Therapy Localization I – presents the very real possibility that muscle testing results from a given examiner may vary from day to day without further calibration. Although the protocols and examiners were the same from both trials I and II, one standout variation that comes to mind is the season in which trial I (summer) and II (winter) was conducted. The large difference in ambient humidity between trials I and II could have affected the nature of contact between examiner and patient. Far more light on this discussion should be shed with the delivery of further data on intraexaminer reliability plus that from the instrumentation (electrogoniometery, electromyography and vibromyography) expected later in May.