Tweet
Concerning Kendall's Muscles: Testing and Function although the book is
a standard reference one should not jump to the conclusion that the
information contained within is necessarily valid or reliable. One of
the problems with the book is that none of the muscle tests are
referenced, as best as I can tell. Thus, one has no way to judge what
evidence there is for the validity of any of the tests without going
straight to a Medline search. Further in some cases there are studies
that have shown that the method of testing as espoused by Kendall et al
are not valid (e.g. the supraspinatus, infraspinatus, subscapularis,
pectoralis, latissimus dorsi, and the anterior, middle, and posterior
deltoid muscles see: Kelly BT, Kadrmas WR, Speer KP. The manual muscle
examination for rotator cuff strength: An electromyographic
investigation. Am J Sport Med 1996;24(5):581-8). I know that this
reference was published after Kendall it just happens to be one I know
about. Still it shows that the methods described which may be rational
given the anatomy may not be valid.
"Judith Taber, PT" wrote:
> Look at Florence Kendall's Muscles: Testing and Function and/or at her
> video library of manual muscle testing for precise descriptions of test
> postions. Why not contact Florence about reliability/validity of those tests?
> Judith Taber, PT
--
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Stephen M. Perle, D.C. "A man who knows that
Associate Professor of Clinical Sciences he is a fool is not
University of Bridgeport College of Chiropractic a great fool."
Bridgeport, CT 06601 Chuang Tzu
E-mail: perle@bridgeport.edu
http://www.bridgeport.edu/chiro/
__________________________________________________ ___________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send SIGNOFF BIOMCH-L to LISTSERV@nic.surfnet.nl
For information and archives: http://isb.ri.ccf.org/biomch-l
---------------------------------------------------------------
a standard reference one should not jump to the conclusion that the
information contained within is necessarily valid or reliable. One of
the problems with the book is that none of the muscle tests are
referenced, as best as I can tell. Thus, one has no way to judge what
evidence there is for the validity of any of the tests without going
straight to a Medline search. Further in some cases there are studies
that have shown that the method of testing as espoused by Kendall et al
are not valid (e.g. the supraspinatus, infraspinatus, subscapularis,
pectoralis, latissimus dorsi, and the anterior, middle, and posterior
deltoid muscles see: Kelly BT, Kadrmas WR, Speer KP. The manual muscle
examination for rotator cuff strength: An electromyographic
investigation. Am J Sport Med 1996;24(5):581-8). I know that this
reference was published after Kendall it just happens to be one I know
about. Still it shows that the methods described which may be rational
given the anatomy may not be valid.
"Judith Taber, PT" wrote:
> Look at Florence Kendall's Muscles: Testing and Function and/or at her
> video library of manual muscle testing for precise descriptions of test
> postions. Why not contact Florence about reliability/validity of those tests?
> Judith Taber, PT
--
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Stephen M. Perle, D.C. "A man who knows that
Associate Professor of Clinical Sciences he is a fool is not
University of Bridgeport College of Chiropractic a great fool."
Bridgeport, CT 06601 Chuang Tzu
E-mail: perle@bridgeport.edu
http://www.bridgeport.edu/chiro/
__________________________________________________ ___________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send SIGNOFF BIOMCH-L to LISTSERV@nic.surfnet.nl
For information and archives: http://isb.ri.ccf.org/biomch-l
---------------------------------------------------------------