Reliability, measurement error and construct validity of four proprioceptive tests in patients with chronic idiopathic neck pain

• Main Author: Gonçalves, Catarina
• Publication Date: 2019
• Other Authors: Silva, Anabela G.
• Format: Article
• Language: eng
• Source: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Download full: http://hdl.handle.net/10773/37723
• topic: Chronic neck pain; Proprioception; Catastrophizing; Disability; Fear of movement

Background: There are different neck proprioceptive tests that are believed to be targeting different sources of proprioceptive information. Objective: To assess the reliability, measurement error, discriminative validity and convergent validity of four proprioceptive tests (head repositioning to neutral – HRNT, torsion test - TT, head repositioning to 30° rotation – HR30T and figure of eight relocation test – F8T) in individuals with chronic idiopathic neck pain and asymp- tomatic individuals. A secondary aim was to assess the divergent validity of these tests by correlating them against measures of disability, pain catastrophizing and fear of movement. Design: – Reliability and validity study. Methods: – 66 participants (33 with chronic neck pain and 33 asymptomatic) were assessed using four pro- prioceptive tests, pain catastrophizing scale, neck disability index, tampa scale of kinesiophobia and visual analogue scale. Results: Proprioceptive tests showed moderate to good reliability (ICC: 0.55 to 0.85), but high measurement error. All tests but the HR30T were significantly different between participants with and without neck pain (p < 0.05). Only the HRNT showed an area under the curve above 0.5 (AUC95% CI = 0.51; 0.78, p ≤ 0.042). Between test correlations ranged between 0.35 and 0.61 and correlations between proprioceptive tests and catastrophizing, fear of movement and disability were, in general, lower than 0.3. Conclusion: The four proprioceptive tests showed reliability and measurement errors good enough for group comparisons but of limited utility for individual comparisons. They seem to measure related but dissimilar constructs and the HRNT seemed better at discriminating individuals with and without NP and easier to perform in clinical practice.