The Strain Index (SI) has repeatedly shown high levels of validity for differentiating between safe and hazardous tasks for the distal upper extremity (DUE). One limitation of the SI is the lack of reliability data. This study was designed to evaluate the test-retest repeatability of the SI. Fifteen raters, divided into five teams of three, were asked to use the SI to analyze 73 video AVI files of different job tasks; initially as individuals and then as teams. Several months later, raters were asked to repeat individual and team job task assessments. Raters were instructed to analyze tasks using five of six SI task variables, while the sixth was held constant. For three of these task variables, additional data was collected such as peak force and duration of job cycle. Test-retest repeatability was measured using Pearson's R, Spearman's rho, and tetrachoric correlation according to the nature of the variable. Spearman's rho values for individual and team task variable ratings ranged from 0.68 to 0.96 (0.88 average). Pearson's R for task variable data ranged from 0.76 to 0.99 for both teams and individuals with an average of 0.91. The Strain Index's rho values for individuals and teams were 0.70 and 0.84, respectively. For hazard classification, the tetrachoric correlation for individuals was 0.81 and 0.88 for teams. Results of this study support the conclusion that the Strain Index is repeatable when used by teams as well as individuals.

The Strain Index (SI) has repeatedly shown high levels of validity for differentiating between safe and hazardous tasks for the distal upper extremity (DUE). One limitation of the SI is the lack of reliability data. This study was designed to evaluate the test-retest repeatability of the SI. Fifteen raters, divided into five teams of three, were asked to use the SI to analyze 73 video AVI files of different job tasks; initially as individuals and then as teams. Several months later, raters were asked to repeat individual and team job task assessments. Raters were instructed to analyze tasks using five of six SI task variables, while the sixth was held constant. For three of these task variables, additional data was collected such as peak force and duration of job cycle. Test-retest repeatability was measured using Pearson's R, Spearman's rho, and tetrachoric correlation according to the nature of the variable. Spearman's rho values for individual and team task variable ratings ranged from 0.68 to 0.96 (0.88 average). Pearson's R for task variable data ranged from 0.76 to 0.99 for both teams and individuals with an average of 0.91. The Strain Index's rho values for individuals and teams were 0.70 and 0.84, respectively. For hazard classification, the tetrachoric correlation for individuals was 0.81 and 0.88 for teams. Results of this study support the conclusion that the Strain Index is repeatable when used by teams as well as individuals.

Notre étude porte sur deux échantillons de patients Tunisiens : un groupe clinique composé de sujets (N = 41) diagnostiqués trouble de personnalité limite par leur psychiatre en référence aux critères du DSM-IV (APA, 2003) et un groupe témoin composé de patients schizophrènes (N = 27). Nous avons utilisé le test de Rorschach en Système intégré (Exner, 1993) et avons fixé comme premier objectif de dégager les caractéristiques du fonctionnement des patients limites au Rorschach selon les paramètres de l’organisation limite de la personnalité décrits par Kernberg (1997). Notre deuxième objectif est de vérifier si le fonctionnement de ces sujets, tel que traduit dans le Rorschach, permet de les différencier des sujets schizophrènes. Le troisième objectif est d’étudier, par une approche test re-test avec un intervalle de 6 à 9 mois, la stabilité des variables du Rorschach à travers le temps. Les résultats de notre étude montrent que les protocoles des patients limites diffèrent par rapport à certaines variables-clés (7 variables) de ceux des schizophrènes. Ces variables constituent des indicateurs pertinents du fonctionnement limite. Néanmoins, nous avons relevé une hétérogénéité à l’intérieur de notre échantillon de sujets limites. En effet, plusieurs niveaux de fonctionnements ont émergé à l’intérieur de ce groupe. Par ailleurs, il n’y a pas eu de différence significative entre la plupart des variables en T1 et T2 aussi bien chez les sujets limites que les schizophrènes. Toutefois, la stabilité semble dépendre du fonctionnement sous-jacent. / This study concerns two samples of Tunisian patients: a clinical group (N = 41) with subjects who received a diagnosis of Borderline personality disorder in reference to DSM-IV (APA, 2003) by their psychiatrist and a control group of schizophrenic patients (N = 27). We used the Rorschach comprehensive system (Exner, 1993) in order to identify, as a first purpose, the characteristics of the Rorschach’s borderline functioning based on the Kernberg’s description of the borderline organisation (1997). In parallel, we aimed, to verify whether the Rorschach’s functioning characteristics are able to distinguish our clinical group from the Schizophrenic group. Furthermore, both of groups were tested once in the beginning of our study and again, with an interval of 6 at 9 months in order to study the stability of the Rorschach’s variables. The results indicated that seven (7) variables distinguish our group of Borderline subjects from the schizophrenics. These variables represent highly relevant indicators of borderline functioning. Nevertheless, our clinical group is heterogeneous. In fact, different ranges of functioning have emerged. Elsewhere, there is no significant difference between the most variables in T1 and T2 but the stability may differ depending on the underlying functioning.

Abstract   Background:Low back pain has a reported lifetime prevalence of about 70% and tops the list of  years lived with disease in the developed countries. There is still to date areas on the mechanisms driving pain andmovement system impairments not fully understood. For some areas the  research are evident butclinically friendly methods lack. A new test for measuring joint position  sense (JPS) in the lumbar spine is tested forreliability.  Objectives:Aim of this study was to evaluate test-retest reliability on a new test measuring JPS, using two laser pointers attached to the vertebrates off L1 and S1. Design:Cross-sectional observational test-retest. Methods:82 participants, 41 with mechanical low back pain and 41 healthy controls, were tested  for repositioning error two times with 30-60minutes between tests. Movement directions tested  was; Flexion, extension, rotation right and rotation left in sitting. Intraclasscorrelation coefficient  (ICC) was used for measuring relative reliability and standard error ofmeasurement (SEM) for  absolute reliability. Results:ICC in the LBP group ranged from -0,51 – 0,94 and for the whole group -0,19 – 0,84. The SEM in the LBP group ranged from 0,1 – 2,9 (95%CI -5,6 – 6,4) and for the whole group 0,1 – 3,2 (95%CI -6,3 – 6,2). Conclusions:The test-retest reliability of this JPS test shows poor to moderate reliability. Measuring joint positioning sense by using two laser pointers attached to S1 and L1 as in this study has shown not to be reliable enough to be used in clinical tests or research and can therefore not be recommended.