Home > Journals > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine > Past Issues > Europa Medicophysica 2000 March;35(1) > Europa Medicophysica 2000 March;35(1):31-8





A Journal on Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation after Pathological Events

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (SIMFER), European Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ESPRM), European Union of Medical Specialists - Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Section (UEMS-PRM), Mediterranean Forum of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (MFPRM), Hellenic Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (EEFIAP)
In association with International Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ISPRM)
Indexed/Abstracted in: CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,827




Europa Medicophysica 2000 March;35(1):31-8


Internal consistency, reproducibility & reliability of S-EMG testing

Sella G. E.

Ohio Valley Disability Institute, Martins Ferry, Ohio, USA


BACKGROUND: This ­study test­ed the hypoth­e­sis ­that 22 S-EMG dynam­ic pro­to­cols, repeat­ed 3 ­times dur­ing one day on 5 sub­jects ­show ­good inter­nal con­sis­ten­cy, ­good ­test - re-­test repro­du­cibil­ity and the ­study ­results are reli­able ­when com­pared to the ­results of a ­large data­base.
METHODS: The inves­ti­ga­tion was a method­o­log­i­cal ­study of 22 S-EMG dynam­ic pro­to­cols encom­pass­ing the 10 ­major ­joints of the ­body. The dura­tion of ­each ­test was approx­i­mate­ly 30 min­utes. Each ­test was repeat­ed 3 ­times with­in an 8 ­hour day. Setting: the ­study was con­duct­ed in a pri­vate ­physician’s clin­ic. Participants: the ­study was con­duct­ed ­with 5 ­adult vol­un­teer sub­jects. None had any ­acute mus­cu­lar symp­tom. However, 4 / 5 had clin­i­cal his­to­ries ­which includ­ed mus­cu­lar dys­func­tion. Interventions: the S-EMG test­ing is not inva­sive. It did ­involve ­only move­ments per­formed at a min­i­mal­ly per­ceived lev­el of ­effort. None of the test­ing was per­ceived as fatigu­ing by the par­tic­i­pants. Measures: the sta­tis­ti­cal ­data gath­ered the fol­low­ing param­e­ters: activ­ity poten­tial aver­ag­es (x-), min­i­mal rest­ing poten­tial aver­ag­es (x-), stan­dard devi­a­tion ­over 5 rep­e­ti­tions of the ­same ­motion or ­rest (SD) and coef­fi­cients of vari­a­tion (CV) of the ­ratios of SD/x-for ­each ­motion. Statistics ­were gath­ered ­using the ­above param­e­ters ­with the ­scope of defin­ing the over­all inter­nal con­sis­ten­cy of the ­whole ­study (CV), nor­mal­iza­tion of the activ­ity and rest­ing poten­tials aver­ag­es by divi­sion by the aver­age val­ue for the ­group and pres­en­ta­tion in the ­form of per­cent­ag­es for bet­ter com­par­abil­ity, repro­du­cibil­ity var­i­ables ­based on the nor­mal­ized val­ues for ­inter & ­intra-indi­vid­u­al dif­fer­enc­es of test­ing ­over the 10 ­joints and repro­du­cibil­ity of the ­results ­over the 3 ­trials for rest­ing and ­motion poten­tials. Reliability of the ­data ­from the ­study was meas­ured by com­par­ing the activ­ity poten­tial val­ues ­with ­those ­obtained in a ­large data­base.
RESULTS: The over­all ­results indi­cat­ed the fol­low­ing: a) S-EMG 22 dynam­ic pro­to­cols involv­ing the 10 ­major ­joints, per­formed by 5 sub­jects ­with 3 rep­e­ti­tions in any giv­en test­ing day ­have a ­high ­degree of inter­nal con­sis­ten­cy, i.e. 96% in 94% of test­ing val­ues; b) S-EMG test­ing ­done in the ­above con­di­tions ­shows an over­all ­degree of ­test - re-­test repro­du­cibil­ity of £ 10%, wheth­er the var­i­ables of repeat­abil­ity are ­intra or ­inter-indi­vid­u­al, ­over 10 ­joints for activ­ity or rest­ing poten­tials and ­over 3 ­trials; c) S-EMG test­ing ­results ­from the ­present ­study ­show a ­degree of reli­abil­ity of 3% ­above the val­ues of sim­i­lar mus­cles ­found in a 198% larg­er data­base.
CONCLUSIONS: S-EMG dynam­ic pro­to­cols per­formed in the con­di­tions ­described ­above ­show a ­high ­degree of inter­nal con­sis­ten­cy, ­test - re-­test repro­du­cibil­ity and reli­abil­ity in com­par­i­son ­with ­results ­from a ­large data­base.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail