Interrater Reliability among Novice Raters in the Assessment of Pelvic Floor Muscle Tone Using the Reissing Tone Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The authors sought to determine the interrater reliability among novice raters of intra-vaginal manual assessment of pubococcygeus muscle tone in women using the Reissing tone scale (RTS). Method: Three graduating physiotherapy students (novice raters) and one experienced pelvic floor physiotherapist assessed 31 female participants (aged 20–66 y). Assessors gave RTS scores for pubococcygeus tone at three intra-vaginal locations (6:00, 9:00, and 3:00). Interrater reliability was determined for the novice raters using a two-way random single-measures absolute agreement intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Spearman rank correlation (SRC) analysis determined the correlation between the novice and expert scores. Results: The ICC values for the novice raters were 0.523, 0.274, and 0.336 at 6:00, 9:00, and 3:00, and the SRC values between the novice and expert raters were 0.580, 0.320, and 0.340. Conclusions: The novice raters demonstrated low to moderate interrater reliability for intra-vaginal manual assessment of pubococcygeus tone. This result indicates that manual assessment of pelvic floor muscle tone is not reliable enough to use as a stand-alone test to guide treatment, at least for physiotherapists with limited clinical experience.
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 | 0.035 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".