Inter- and intra-tester reliability of the acute brain injury physiotherapy assessment (ABIPA) in patients with acquired brain injury.

BACKGROUND: The Acute Brain Injury Physiotherapy Assessment (ABIPA) is a new outcome measure with face validity and sensitivity to change in the early stages of neuromotor recovery after acquired brain injury (ABI). Reliability of physiotherapists using the tool has not been established. OBJECTIVE: Determine inter- and intra-tester reliability of physiotherapists using the ABIPA. METHODS: An observational study using video-recorded assessments of patient performance (n = 7) was undertaken with two cohorts of physiotherapists: those receiving training (n = 23) and those provided with guidelines only (n = 7) to administer the ABIPA. RESULTS: Across all physiotherapists (n = 30), inter-tester reliability was excellent (α ≥ 0.9) for total ABIPA score. All individual items, except trunk alignment in supine (α = 0.5), showed excellent or good internal consistency (α ≥ 0.7). For intra-tester reliability, substantial or perfect agreement was achieved for eight items (weighted Kappa Kw ≥ 0.6), moderate agreement for four items (Kw = 0.4-0.6) and three items achieved fair agreement (alignment head supine: Kw = 0.289; alignment trunk supine: Kw = 0.387 and tone left upper limb: Kw = 0.366). CONCLUSION: Physiotherapists are highly consistent using the ABIPA but several items may need revision to improve intra-tester reliability.

Physiotherapist observation of head and neck alignment.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability of physiotherapists' visual observation of head and neck alignment. DESIGN: An interrater reliability study with an evaluation of concurrent validity using a gold standard. SETTING: Physiotherapy Research Laboratory, Princess Alexandra Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Three physiotherapist raters, one male model exhibiting 53 test positions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Assessment of head and neck alignment required rating the direction of deviation (in each of the three planes of movement), and the magnitude of deviation. RESULTS: All three assessors were correct across all domains of direction and magnitude of deviation for only 10 of the 53 test positions. There was a mean of 2 total errors (out of a possible 12) per position. The more planes of deviation involved in a position, the more total errors there were. Most errors were made in the axial rotation (transverse) plane. Where a lateral flexion (coronal) plane of deviation was involved, there were more total errors; however, this plane itself had the fewest number of errors. Positions with a combination of both lateral flexion and axial rotation deviations were often mistaken for a flexion/extension (sagittal plane) deviation. Fewer errors were recorded for positions of 10-degree deviation compared to 5-degree deviations. CONCLUSIONS: Visual assessment of head and neck alignment by physiotherapists is of questionable validity for identifying deviations in the order of 5 degrees from neutral. For deviations of 10 degrees in a single plane visual, observation is comparable to other clinically available tools.