Analysis of the Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Published Lumbar Flexion, Extension, and Lateral Flexion Scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Articles reflecting the convergent or discriminant validity of the lumbar range of motion tests were reviewed and compared. Mean scores and standard deviations for lumber range of motion from healthy control subjects were plotted against those from patients with low back injuries. OBJECTIVE: To use published research to analyze the convergent and discriminant validity of lumbar range of motion tests for the characterization of low back pain and injury. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several publications have addressed lumbar range of motion validity. Individual studies suggest that the tests possess convergent validity, but that their discriminant validity is indeterminate. METHODS: English-language journals were searched on Medline using "region," "lumbar," "range of motion," "validity of results," "observer variation," and "low back pain" as title and subject search terms. The study methods approximating the specifications of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Convergent validity research showed inconsistent relations between inclinometric and radiographic lumbar range of motion measurements. Some studies showed strong relation, whereas others showed essentially no relation between the two techniques. Correlations between lumbar range of motion scores and spinal disability and function were similarly inconclusive. Studies reporting mean scores and standard deviations for lumbar range of motion measurements showed a high degree of overlap between the scores of participants with low back injuries and those without such injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Convergent and discriminant validities of the lumbar range of motion tests currently require further substantiation. Absolute lumbar range of motion scores may not be suitable as the sole determinants of low back pathology diagnosis. Implications for using the lumbar range of motion tests to characterize low back injuries in medicolegal situations are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.079 | 0.276 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.060 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".