Moderate to Substantial Inter-Rater Reliability in the Assessment of Cranial Bone Mobility Restrictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The World Health Organization benchmarks for osteopathic training consider cranial osteopathy as an important manual skill. Studies of cranial manual therapy have exhibited poor reliability. The aim of this study was to investigate the inter-rater reliability of the manual mobility tests of the spheno-occipital synchondrosis (SOS), and the temporal, parietal, and frontal bones, as assessed in osteopathic manual therapy. Methods: Twenty-one adults were assessed on a single day by three experienced osteopaths using a standard assessment protocol. Before data collection, the osteopaths participated in a consensus training, which included establishing the criteria for identifying a cranial bone mobility restriction; the application of the seven-step palpation method; a pretesting practice; a fine-tuning palpation training; and a calibration period before the assessment of the subjects. Three subjects were assessed simultaneously with the evaluators rotating to assess each subject. The evaluators were blinded to the subject by a curtain, and each other's assessments. Each bone was rated as restricted or not restricted. The authors applied the Landis and Koch classification to describe the magnitude of inter-rater reliability. Results: Moderate reliability was established for a lateral strain of the SOS (Fleiss' generalized kappa 0.48), substantial reliability was established for the other SOS strain patterns (Fleiss' generalized kappa 0.62–0.75), and almost perfect reliability for temporal, parietal, and frontal bone (Fleiss' generalized kappa 0.81–0.96). Conclusion: The results demonstrate consistency when three experienced osteopaths evaluate cranial bone mobility restrictions. The results highlight the importance of consensus training and rigorous methodology in manual therapy reliability studies.
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 | 0.128 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".