4.4 Article

Inter-rater reliability study of the modified Oxford Grading Scale and the Peritron manometer

Journal

PHYSIOTHERAPY
Volume 97, Issue 2, Pages 132-138

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2010.06.007

Keywords

Assessment; Inter-rater reliability; Palpation; Pelvic floor; Squeeze pressure; Strength

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the modified Oxford Grading Scale and the Peritron manometer. Design All participants were evaluated twice, first by one examiner and 30 days later by a second examiner. Measurements of vaginal squeeze pressure were compared with the results from the palpation test. Participants Nineteen women with a mean age of 23.7 years (range 21 to 28 years). Results Inter-rater reliability for vaginal palpation was fair (kappa = 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.09 to 0.57). Using the Peritron manometer, the difference between examiners was less than 10 cmH(2)O in 11 of the 19 (58%) cases. The palpation test did not differentiate between weak, moderate, good and strong muscle contractions. This study found fair inter-rater reliability for the modified Oxford Grading Scale and moderate inter-rater reliability for the Peritron manometer. Conclusions The inter-rater reliability of vaginal squeeze pressure measurement using the Peritron manometer is acceptable and can be used in re-evaluations performed by different examiners in clinical practice. However, for research purposes, the ideal situation would be for a single examiner to assess and re-assess the subject. Vaginal palpation is important in the clinical assessment of correctness of a pelvic floor muscle contraction, but this study does not support the use of the modified Oxford Grading Scale as a reliable and valid method to measure and differentiate pelvic floor muscle strength. (C) 2010 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available