Interadministrator Reliability of a Modified Instrumented Push and Release Test of Reactive Balance.
Amanda Morris, Nora F Fino, Ryan Pelo and 4 others
PMID 34942598WHAT IT FOUND
When two therapists administer the eyes-closed Push and Release test, their results agree moderately on recovery time and step length, but poorly on how fast the patient steps.
Use summary metrics across all four directions rather than single-direction scores to ensure reliable comparison.
Key findings
01Interadministrator agreement was poor for step latency, moderate for time to stability, and moderate-to-good for step length.
02Summary metrics across all four directions showed better agreement between administrators than individual direction scores.
03Total clinical scores strongly correlated with median time to stability and median step length, but not with maximum latency.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study included only healthy young adults, so reliability in older adults or those with pathology (like mTBI or Parkinson's) is unknown. Testing both administrators in a single session may have introduced a learning effect, potentially underestimating the true reliability. The sample size was small (n=20).
Declared interests
No conflicts of interest or funding sources are explicitly stated in the provided text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that step latency is a reliable measure when comparing patients assessed by different therapists. The study found poor interadministrator agreement for this specific metric, meaning variations in latency may reflect the tester rather than the patient's balance.