Latimer, J, Goodsell, MM, Lee, M, Maher, CG, Wilkinson, BN & Moran, CC 1996, 'Evaluation of a New Device for Measuring Responses to Posteroanterior Forces in a Patient Population, Part 1: Reliability Testing', Physical Therapy, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 158-165.
View/Download from: Publisher's site
Latimer, J, Lee, M & Adams, R 1996, 'The effect of training with feedback on physiotherapy students' ability to judge lumbar stiffness', Manual Therapy, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 266-270.
View/Download from: Publisher's site
View description>>
Previous studies have demonstrated that manual judgments of lumbar posteroanterior (PA) stiffness show poor reliability. One explanation for this poor reliability may be that the method of training students using feedback provided by physiotherapy tutors is ineffective. The aim of the current study was to investigate whether immediate quantitative feedback, provided from a highly reliable mechanical device, could improve physiotherapy students' ability to judge lumbar PA stiffness. Four physiotherapy student raters assessed 75 stiffness stimuli (provided by the lumbar spines of asymptomatic volunteers) during pre-test, training and post test sessions held over a 3 week period. During the training sessions raters were provided with accurate and immediate feedback regarding each judgment of PA stiffness at the L3 vertebral level of asymptomatic lumbar spines. No significant difference in mean absolute error between the pre and post tests was found (P = 0.31). Provision of information about the true PA stiffness of each lumbar spine judged, therefore, did not improve the accuracy of physiotherapy students' judgments of lumbar stiffness.
Latimer, J, Lee, M, Adams, R & Moran, CM 1996, 'An investigation of the relationship between low back pain and lumbar posteroanterior stiffness.', J Manipulative Physiol Ther, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 587-591.
View description>>
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between low back pain (LBP) and lumbar posteroanterior (PA) stiffness. DESIGN: A repeated-measures design was used to measure lumbar posteroanterior stiffness on two occasions in subjects with and without LBP. SUBJECTS: Twenty-five subjects with acute or subacute LBP and twenty-five pain-free subjects participated. Pain subjects reported pain on the application of a manual PA force to the lumbar spine and had no contraindication to PA stiffness testing. Pain-free subjects reported no history of LBP requiring treatment, and obtained a score of 0 on the McGill Pain Questionnaire. METHODS: PA stiffness was measured in subjects with LBP when (a) they first presented with pain and (b) when pain had resolved by more than 80%. Pain-free subjects, matched with pain subjects on gender, age, vertebral level to be tested and time between tests, were also measured on two occasions, to control for the effects of repeated stiffness testing and the passing of time. RESULTS: In subjects with low back pain stiffness decreased by 1.21 N/mm between test 1 and test 2. A paired t test found a significant difference between the tests (t = 3.04, df = 24, p = .006). In subjects without pain, there was an increase in stiffness of 0.74 N/mm between test 1 and test 2; a paired t test found no significant difference between the tests (t = -1.673, df = 24, p = .107). CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with LBP showed increased PA stiffness compared with when they had little or no pain, whereas pain-free subjects showed unchanged PA stiffness over time.
Latimer, J, Lee, M, Goodsell, M, Maher, C, Wilkinson, B & Adams, R 1996, 'Instrumented measurement of spinal stiffness', Manual Therapy, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 204-209.
View/Download from: Publisher's site
View description>>
The characteristics of a safe, portable and accurate spinal stiffness testing device are described in this report. Because judgements of spinal stiffness made using manual tests have been shown to be unreliable, several mechanical devices have been designed to measure posteroanterior (PA) stiffness. One major limitation of these devices has been the inability to transport them to locations where subjects with spinal pain could be easily accessed and measured. This paper reports on the design and fabrication of a new, portable, mechanical device for measuring PA stiffness in the lumbar spine. Information regarding the safety features of the device, and contraindications for its use are provided.
Lee, M, Steven, GP, Crosbie, J & Higgs, RJED 1996, 'Towards a theory of lumbar mobilisation–the relationship between applied manual force and movements of the spine', Manual Therapy, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 67-75.
View/Download from: Publisher's site
View description>>
Optimal use of lumbar mobilisation requires a theoretical knowledge of the mechanical effects that occur. When a mobilisation force is applied the target vertebra will move with accompanying intervertebral displacements at many intervertebral joints. In addition, displacements and deformations of other tissues will contribute to the movement of the skin surface under the therapist's hands. The responses can be quantified in terms of the movements of the skin surface (described by the force-displacement relation), the absolute movement of the target vertebra, or the relative intervertebral movements. There are at least seven variables related to the manner of application of the mobilisation force that can be controlled by the therapist to alter the nature of the response. The patient's response is also determined by a number of variables related to the mechanical properties of the tissues of the spine, extra-spinal structures and the interaction between the patient and the treatment couch. Currently there is a moderate amount of information available about the effects of technique variations but there is very little data to directly link variations in the properties of specific anatomical structures with variations in either absolute or relative spinal movements or tissue loads.
Waller, DS & Polonsky, MJ 1996, 'Advice for handling controversial accounts: from products to politicians', Marketing Intelligence & Planning, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 21-28.
View/Download from: Publisher's site
View description>>
Considers Australian advertising agency executives’ attitudes towards “controversial” clients, by focusing on their attitudes towards political accounts. Examines a sample of 101 advertising agency executives from Australia’s 300 largest agencies to determine why some Australian agencies are not willing to accept political accounts. The results, combined with comments from various advertising agency executives and the relevant literature, provide a number of suggestions for agencies who have or are planning to obtain potentially controversial accounts.
