Published Mar 13, 2018
Kelly Holt David Russell Robert Cooperstein Morgan Young Matthew Sherson Heidi Haavik


Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the interexaminer reliability of assessing for vertebral subluxations using a multidimensional battery of tests and continuous measures analysis approach.Methods: 70 participants were assessed by 2 blinded examiners. Examiners used a multidimensional battery of tests to assess for vertebral subluxations in 3 regions (cervical, thoracic, lumbar) of the spine, and indicated which segment had the most positive test findings in each spinal region. The distance was measured from the segment to marks that had been placed on the spine. Interexaminer reliability was determined by calculating the median absolute examiner difference in vertebral equivalents (VEs), where a VE is the height of a typical vertebra in each region of the spine. If the median examiner difference was ≤ 1VE, there was definite agreement on the motion segment that had the most subluxation findings. Differences > 1VE but ≤2VE suggested agreement on the same motion segment, and differences >2VE precluded agreement on the same motion segment.Results: Median absolute examiner differences were 0.5 vertebral equivalents in the lumbar region, 1.0 vertebral equivalent in the cervical and thoracic regions, and 0.6 vertebral equivalents when combined across all regions. In the combined dataset, definite agreement (≤1 vertebral equivalent) occurred 63.3% of the time, possible agreement 19.0% of the time, and definite disagreement 17.6% of the time.Conclusion:  A multidimensional approach to vertebral subluxation assessment was reliable between examiners for detecting the level of vertebral subluxation in all regions of the spine. Median absolute examiner differences indicated examiners agreed on the motion segment with the most positive vertebral subluxation test findings most of the time. Vertebral subluxation assessment agreement, when analyzed using continuous data, indicates much higher reliability than has previously been associated with assessing agreement using discrete data.
Abstract 3419 | PDF Downloads 614



Diagnostic Testing, Spine, Reliability, Vertebral Subluxation

1. World Health Organization. WHO guidelines on basic safety and training in chiropractic. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.
2. Association of Chiropractic Colleges. The Association of Chiropractic Colleges Position Paper # 1. July 1996. . ICA Rev 1996;November/December.
3. Chiropractic WFo. Definitions of Chiropractic 2015 [Available from:
4. Gatterman ML. Foundations of chiropractic: subluxation. 1st ed. St Louis: Mosby-Year Book, Inc; 1995.
5. Ebrall P. Subluxation, what's in a name. Chiropr J Aust 2011;41(3):110-2.
6. Nelson C. The subluxation question. J Chiropr Humanit 1997;7(1):46-55.
7. Triano JJ, Budgell B, Bagnulo A, Roffey B, Bergmann T, Cooperstein R, et al. Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation. Chiropr Man Ther 2013;21(1):36.
8. Ebrall P, Draper B, Repka A. Towards a 21 century paradigm of chiropractic: stage 1, redesigning clinical learning. J Chiropr Educ 2008;22(2):152-60.
9. Definition and Position Statement on the Chiropractic Subluxation [press release]. [Online] Available at: The Rubicon Group, 22/5/2017 2017.
10. Gliedt JA, Hawk C, Anderson M, Ahmad K, Bunn D, Cambron J, et al. Chiropractic identity, role and future: a survey of North American chiropractic students. Chiropr Man Ther 2015;23(1):4.
11. Walker BF, Buchbinder R. Most commonly used methods of detecting spinal subluxation and the preferred term for its description: a survey of chiropractors in Victoria, Australia. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1997;20(9):583-9.
12. Gemmell H, Miller P. Interexaminer reliability of multidimensional examination regimens used for detecting spinal manipulable lesions: A systematic review. Clin Chiropr 2005;8:199-204.
13. Bergmann TF. P.A.R.T.S. Joint assessment procedure. Chiropr Tech 1993;5(3):135-6.
14. Walker BF. Most common methods used in combination to detect spinal subluxation: A survey of chiropractors in Victoria. Australas Chiropr Osteop 1998;7(3):109-11.
15. Keating JC, Jr., Bergmann TF, Jacobs GE, Finer BA, Larson K. Interexaminer reliability of eight evaluative dimensions of lumbar segmental abnormality. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1990;13(8):463-70.
16. French SD, Green S, Forbes A. Reliability of chiropractic methods commonly used to detect manipulable lesions in patients with chronic low-back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2000;23(4):231-8.
17. Cooperstein R, Young M. The reliability of lumbar motion palpation using continuous analysis and confidence ratings. J Canadian Chiropr Assoc 2016; 60(2): 146-57.
18. Cooperstein R, Young M. The reliability of spinal motion palpation determination of the location of the stiffest spinal site is influenced by confidence ratings: a secondary analysis of three studies. Chiropr Man Therap 2016;24:50.
19. Cooperstein R, Haneline M, Young M. Interexaminer reliability of thoracic motion palpation using confidence ratings and continuous analysis. J Chiropr Med 2010;9(3):99-106.
20. Cooperstein R, Young M, Haneline M. Interexaminer reliability of cervical motion palpation using continuous measures and rater confidence levels. J Canadian Chiro Assoc 2013;57(2):156-64.
21. Box-and-Whisker Plots [Available from:
22. Leys C, Ley C, Klein O, Bernard P, Licata L. Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. J Exp Soc Psychol 2013;49(4):764-6.
23. Gray H. Anatomy of the human body 1918 [Available from:
24. Gilad I, Nissan M. Sagittal evaluation of elemental geometrical dimensions of human vertebrae. J Anat 1985;143:115-20.
25. Terazawa K, Akabane H, Gotouda H, Mizukami K, Nagao M, Takatori T. Estimating stature from the length of the lumbar part of the spine in Japanese. Medicine, science, and the law 1990;30(4):354-7.
26. White AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical biomechanics of the spine. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1990.
27. Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment 1994;64(4):284-90.
28. Lee KM, Lee J, Chung CY, Ahn S, Sung KH, Kim TW, et al. Pitfalls and important issues in testing reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients in orthopaedic research. Clinics Orthop Surg 2012;4(2):149-55.
29. Markon KE, Chmielewski M, Miller CJ. The reliability and validity of discrete and continuous measures of psychopathology: a quantitative review. Psychological Bull 2011;137(5):856-79.
30. Baca-Garcia E, Perez-Rodriguez MM, Basurte-Villamor I, Fernandez del Moral AL, Jimenez-Arriero MA, Gonzalez de Rivera JL, et al. Diagnostic stability of psychiatric disorders in clinical practice. Br J Psychiatry 2007;190:210-6.
31. Rouse MW, Borsting E, Deland PN. Reliability of binocular vision measurements used in the classification of convergence insufficiency. Optom Vis Sci 2002;79(4):254-64.
32. Cibulka MT, Delitto A, Koldehoff RM. Changes in innominate tilt after manipulation of the sacroiliac joint in patients with low back pain. An experimental study. Phys Ther 1988;68(9):1359-63.
33. Kokmeyer DJ, Van der Wurff P, Aufdemkampe G, Fickenscher TC. The reliability of multitest regimens with sacroiliac pain provocation tests. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2002;25(1):42-8.
34. Hawk C, Phongphua C, Bleecker J, Swank L, Lopez D, Rubley T. Preliminary study of the reliability of assessment procedures for the indications for chiropractic adjustments of the lumbat spine. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1999;22(6):382-9.
35. Cooperstein R, Holt K, Russell D, Young M, Sherson M, Haavik H. Interexaminer reliability of seated motion palpation in defined spinal regions for the stiffest spinal site using continuous measures analysis. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2017;IN PRESS.