Back
 IJCM  Vol.7 No.1 , January 2016
Posturodynamic 6 Test: A New Scoring Method for Effective Communication of Results
Abstract: Background: Posturodynamic 6 (PDN-6) is a clinical assessment of posture that merges the Clinical Posturodynamic Test and the Pelvic Maintain Test. Current scoring system does not fulfill all our needs and requirements mostly because the same numeric score might reflect 28 different possible combinations of postural dysfunction in terms of anatomic region and laterality. Objective: We propose a new scoring method for the PDN-6 that would not change the clinical methods for the PDN-6 assessment. Specifically, new scoring method would clearly indicate specific patterns of postural dysfunction while still enabling statistical analyses. Methods: We developed a new scoring method for the PDN-6 without changing the instrument’s clinical procedures. We qualitatively assessed the validity of the new scoring system to detail specific patterns of postural dysfunction in terms of anatomic region and laterality. Results: New scoring method successfully deals with limitations of the previous scoring method. The new method enables clinicians to differentiate among 2 or more patients who might have very different patterns of postural dysfunction while still having the same numeric score using the previous scoring. The new scoring method provides quantitative data that are easily translated in terms of anatomic region and laterality for the postural dysfunctions that are present. Patient behavioral improvements are quantified, documented and interpreted with a change in score, and the exact nature of the improvements can be determined in terms of anatomic location and laterality. Rash analyses can also be used for statistical analyses. Conclusion: PDN-6 new scoring method provides quantitative data that provide more specific information about a patient’s postural deficits and any changes in their postural dysfunction over time without changing the clinical assessment methods.
Cite this paper: Janin, A. , Barela, J. , Dupui, P. , T. Gross, M. and Janin, M. (2016) Posturodynamic 6 Test: A New Scoring Method for Effective Communication of Results. International Journal of Clinical Medicine, 7, 77-83. doi: 10.4236/ijcm.2016.71006.
References

[1]   Janin, M. (2012) Correlation between Clinical and Kinetic Testing in Sport Podiatry. Ter. Man, 12, 7-11.

[2]   Villeneuve, P. (1995) L’épreuve posturodynamique. In: Gagey, P.-M. and Weber, B., Eds., Entrées du Système Postural Fin, Masson, Paris, 51-56.

[3]   Weber, B., Villeneuve, P. and Villeneuve-Parpay, S. (2002) Epreuve posturodynamique chez le sujet sain. Comparaison de sa cotation qualitative par plusieurs examinateurs. In: Lacour, M., Ed., Contrôle postural pathologie et traitement, innovations et rééducation, Solal, Coll. Posture et Equilibre, Marseille, 21-23.

[4]   Xia, Q., Wang, S., Passias, P.G., et al. (2009) In Vivo Range of Motion of the Lumbar Spinous Processes. European Spine Journal, 18, 1355-1362.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1068-8

[5]   Roussel, N.A., Nijs, J., Truijen, S., et al. (2007) Low Back Pain: Clinimetric Properties of the Trendelenburg Test, Active Strait Leg Raise Test, and Breathing during Active Straight Leg Raising. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 30, 270-278.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2007.03.001

[6]   Johan, T. and Eva, H. (2009) Inter-Rater Reliability of Three Standardized Functional Tests in Patients with Low Back Pain. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2, 10-58.

[7]   Youdas, J.W., Madson, T.J. and Hollman, J.H. (2010) Usefulness of the Trendelenburg Test for Identification of Patients with Hip Joint Osteoarthritis. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 26, 184-194.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09593980902750857

[8]   Youdas, J.W., Mraz, S.T., Norstad, B.J., et al. (2007) Determining Meaningful Changes in Pelvic-on-Femoral Position during the Trendelenburgtest. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 16, 326-335.

[9]   Hardcastle, P. and Nade, S. (1985) The Significance of the Trendelenburg Test. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 67, 741-746.

[10]   De Kegel, A., Dhooge, I., Cambier, D., et al. (2011) Test-Retest Reliability of the Assessment of Postural Stability in Typically Developing Children and in Hearing Impaired Children. Gait Posture, 33, 679-685.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.02.024

[11]   McKeon, P.O. and Hertel, J. (2008) Systematic Review of Postural Control and Lateral Ankle Instability, Part I: Can Deficits Be Detected with Instrumented Testing. Journal of Athletic Training, 43, 293-304.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-43.3.293

[12]   Enoch, F., Kjaer, P., Elkjaer, A., et al. (2011) Inter-Examiner Reproducibility of Tests for Lumbar Motor Control. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 25, 112-114.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-114

[13]   Keenan, A.M., Redmond, A.C., Horton, M., et al. (2007) The Foot Posture Index: Rasch Analysis of a Novel, Foot Specific Outcome Measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88, 88-93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.005

[14]   Granger, C.V., Carlin, M., Linacre, J.M., et al. (2010) Rasch-Derived Latent Trait Measurement of Outcomes: Insightful Use Leads to Precision Case Management and Evidence-Based Practices in Functional Healthcare. Journal of Applied Measurement, 11, 230-243.

[15]   Linacre, J.M. (2004) Rasch Model Estimation: Further Topics. Journal of Applied Measurement, 5, 95-110.

 
 
Top