AzTrials
AzTrials

LyingNCT01066312

The Accuracy of Manual Muscle Testing

An observational study of Lying, run by Parker Research Institute at 1 site in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Manual Muscle Testing (MMT) practiced by over a million practitioners worldwide. However, it's accuracy under varying levels of blindness has not yet been considered. This study will test this accuracy. Study Hypothesis: MMT can accurately distinguish congruent from incongruent statements. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 65 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Lying
How many people
160 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
Mar 2010to Jun 2013
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 65 years
  • All sexes
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Adult, Older adult

Study population: 1. Practitioenrs - Healthcare providers - healthy adults 2. Testees - Healthy adults with no prior experience with MMT

Who may be able to join

  • Practitioners
  • health care provider
  • aged between 18 and 65 years old
  • healthy
  • fluent in English
  • Testees
Show all 9Show fewer
  • aged between 18 and 65 years old
  • healthy
  • fluent in English

Who cannot join

  • Practitioners
  • a current physical disability or injury of either upper extremity
  • Blind, deaf or mute
  • Testees
  • a current physical disability or injury of either upper extremity
  • Prior experience with MMT
Show all 9Show fewer
  • Blind, deaf or mute
  • are known to the Practitioner
  • NOTE: For this study, no compensation is possible.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • Parker Research Institute

    Dallas, Texas, 75229

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: Investigating the Accuracy of Manual Muscle Testing for Distinguishing Congruent From Incongruent Statements Under Varying Levels of Blinding

Manual Muscle Testing (MMT) practiced by over a million practitioners worldwide. However, it's accuracy under varying levels of blindness has not yet been considered. This study will test this accuracy.

Study Hypothesis: MMT can accurately distinguish congruent from incongruent statements. Also, the accuracy of MMT is positively correlated with practitioner experience.

Read the detailed description

Manual Muscle Testing is a non-invasive assessment tool used by millions of healthcare practitioners worldwide for a variety of purposes. First described in the literature by Lovett and Wight in 1915, MMT was originally used to assess muscular weakness in polio victims. In 1949, physiotherapists Kendall and Kendall refined MMT into an art and science with the publication of their benchmark text, Muscles: Testing and Function. This type of MMT is still used today to assess neuromuscular integrity.

In the 1960's, a different use for MMT was described by Dr. George Goodheart. In Goodheart's technique, called Applied Kinesiology (AK), MMT is used to evaluate a variety of additional functions of the body, apart from neuromuscular integrity. From Goodheart's work, many different techniques have emerged which use this second type of MMT. Moreover, it is estimated that over one million healthcare practitioners worldwide use this type of MMT: medical doctors, dentists, chiropractors, osteopaths, physiotherapists, other health professionals - plus even some lay-persons.

As a result of this divergence, there exists two very different forms of MMT: (1) orthopaedic muscle testing to quantify muscle strength and asses neurological integrity, and (2) the other type of muscle testing - which called be called "muscle response testing" which is used to obtain additional information about a patient. What that information is depends upon the MMT system being used and what information is sought. It is this latter form of MMT that this proposed study will investigate. Therefore, for the remainder of this application, the term "MMT" will be used to refer only to the second type ("muscle response testing").

The basic premise of MMT is that when there is some aberrant nervous system input to a muscle, it is less likely to be able to resist an external force. During a manual muscle test, an external force is applied to one muscle or group of muscles which at first causes an isometric then an eccentric contraction. Consequently, the muscle being tested is labelled "weak" or "strong" based on its ability to resist this external force.

A number of different techniques use MMT to test the body's physiological response to semantic stimuli, which may have both cognitive and emotional components. Monti et al. found that a MMT following congruent statements yielded significantly different results compared to a MMT following incongruent statements. A congruent statement is one that the person believes is true. An incongruent statement is one the person believes is false. The study by Monti et al. used self-referential statements similar to this study design, however they used statements such as, "My name is (insert one's name)". One criticism of using this type of self-referential statements is that in all likelihood both the muscle tester and the muscle testee know the verity of the statement, therefore, they are both unblinded, which may have introduced biased. While it is generally accepted by those who use this assessment tool that some bias exists in MMT, little is currently known about the degree of this bias. Therefore the main objective of this study is to investigate the accuracy of MMT to distinguish congruent from incongruent statements under varying degrees of blindness.

A further aim of this study are to explore if practitioner experience correlate with MMT accuracy. Caruso and Leisman reported greater MMT accuracy in experienced practitioners compared to inexperienced practitioners. Therefore, this study will test the reproducibility of these findings.

There will be two groups of participants selected for this study: (1) Practitioners, and (2) Testees - where the Practitioner will perform MMT on the Testee as the Testee speaks a statement. The Testee will know if s/he is speaking a true or false statement. However, for some statements, the Practitioner will be blind to the verity of the statement.

Results will be analysed for percent correct - that is, percent of muscle tests which accurately predicted the verity of the spoken statement.

Conditions
Lying
Keywords
Muscle testing, Kinesiology, Muscles, Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Practitioner Experience, This study is actually not a randomised controlled trial,, but an assessment of diagnostic test accuracy. We will be, looking at the accuracy of MMT to distinguish congruent from, incongruent statements under varying levels of blinding.
Medical subject headings
Deception

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

Study groups in NCT01066312
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
PractitionersHealthcare practitioners who either use, have used or do not use MMT in practice
TesteesHealthy adults with no experience with MMT

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Percent correct

    Measured: 1 hour

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. Practitioner Experience

    Measured: 1 hour

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted10 Feb 2010 (estimated)
  2. Study startMar 2010
  3. Primary completionJun 2013
  4. Study completionJun 2013

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Other
Time perspective
Other
Enrolment
160 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT01066312
Sponsor's protocol ID
MMT Study
Status last verified
Jun 2017
First submitted
9 Feb 2010
Last updated
19 Jun 2017
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
Yes

Publications

  • Caruso W, Leisman G. A force/displacement analysis of muscle testing. Percept Mot Skills. 2000 Oct;91(2):683-92. doi: 10.2466/pms.2000.91.2.683.

    PubMed 11065332
  • Caruso W, Leisman G. The clinical utility of force/displacement analysis of muscle testing in applied kinesiology. Int J Neurosci. 2001;106(3-4):147-57. doi: 10.3109/00207450109149745.

    PubMed 11264916
  • Ludtke R, Kunz B, Seeber N, Ring J. Test-retest-reliability and validity of the Kinesiology muscle test. Complement Ther Med. 2001 Sep;9(3):141-5. doi: 10.1054/ctim.2001.0455.

    PubMed 11926427
  • Pollard H, Lakay B, Tucker F, Watson B, Bablis P. Interexaminer reliability of the deltoid and psoas muscle test. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005 Jan;28(1):52-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2004.12.008.

    PubMed 15726035
  • Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC; STARD Group. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Fam Pract. 2004 Feb;21(1):4-10. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmh103.

    PubMed 14760036
  • Jensen AM, Stevens RJ, Burls AJ. Estimating the accuracy of muscle response testing: two randomised-order blinded studies. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 Nov 30;16(1):492. doi: 10.1186/s12906-016-1416-2.

    PubMed 27903263

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Lying, run by Parker Research Institute at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 9 inclusion and 9 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Jun 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Percent correct (time frame: 1 hour). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01066312, which also lists 6 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 Jun 2017.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in