Reliability and validity of a standardized Mensendieck physiotherapy test (SMT)

TLDR: The results indicate that the standardized Mensendieck test is a reliable tool, demonstrating a good discriminative validity, and may turn out to be a useful instrument in the evaluation of patients with somatoform disorders.

Abstract: A standardized test was developed to evaluate posture, movement, gait, sitting posture, and respiration of patients with psychosomatic disorders, based on the Mensendieck principles of observation and analysis of motor function. To validate the test and to make a comprehensive body examination of a defined group of patients, it was applied in a study of women with chronic pelvic pain (CPP, ICD10 F45.4). Fifteen women with CPP and 15 matched, healthy controls were examined. Test subjects were video recorded and scored by three experienced Mensendieck physical therapists, blinded with respect to the selection of subjects. Scores from 0 (for least functional movement) to 7 (optimal function) were assigned to each test person according to a test manual. High intraclass correlations (ICC1.1 [corrected] ranging from 0.82 to 0.97) were found among the testers. The standardized Mensendieck test (SMT) discriminated well between women with CPP and the controls (sensitivity 0.9, specificity 0.7, mean values). The CPP patients scored significantly lower than the controls in all subtests (p < 0.01). The largest difference in scores were found for gait (patients 2.70 +/- 0.11, vs. control, 5.60 +/- 0.09) and respiration (patients 2.88 +/- 0.14, vs. control, 5.63 +/- 0.10). The results indicate that, in the hands of experienced Mensendieck therapists, the SMT is a reliable tool, demonstrating a good discriminative validity. Furthermore, it may turn out to be a useful instrument in the evaluation of patients with somatoform disorders. It may also point toward a possible therapeutic treatment approach to patients with CPP.