The inter- and intra-rater reliability of the manual diaphragm assessment scale in healthy participants

Objective

The main aim of this study was to test the inter and intra-rater reliability of the Manual Diaphragm Assessment (MED) scale and compared with chest expansion (CE) in healthy participants.

Methods

A reliability study, with a sample of 45 healthy participants, composed of 30 women and 15 men. Participants were evaluated by two raters. The MED assesses seven different points on the diaphragm and rates its degree of restriction on a scale of 1–5. Upper and lower CE were measured in centimeters with a measuring tape, which is a valid and reliable method. The intraclass coefficients (ICC) for inter and intra-rater reliability for CE and MED were calculated for mean measurement consistency using a two-way random effects model.

Results

The intra- and inter-rater reliability of MEDs ranged from low to moderate. The majority of the ICC values in intra-rater reliability were greater than in inter-rater reliability, and the majority of the ICC values in both were higher at the left assessment point. CE inter- and intra-reliability ICC varied from moderate to good. For the upper and lower CE, the inter-rater reliability ICC values were greater than 0.74, and the intra-rater reliability was greater than 0.71.

Conclusion

The manual evaluation diaphragm scale had poor to moderate intra and inter-reliability. The chest expansion's intra and inter-reliability ranged from moderate to good, which was consistent with previous studies. Measuring chest expansion with a tape is a reliable method of evaluating the diaphragm in a clinical setting.