Skip to main content

Table 5 Evaluation

From: Peyton’s four-step approach for teaching complex spinal manipulation techniques – a prospective randomized trial

Evaluation Item Peyton Group Control Group Between Subject Factor Intervention Between Subject Factor Gender
Women Men Women Men F(1,19) p F(1,19) p
Cervical spine and thoracic spine (6-point grading scale)
 Indications/contraindications 2.4 ± 1.3 2.1 ± 0.4 1.8 ± 0.4 2 1.35 0.26 0.02 0.9
 Mobilisation/Manipulation 2.3 ± 0.9 1.9 ± 0.7 2.4 ± 1.1 2.25 ± 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4
 3-step-diagnosis 1.9 ± 0.9 1.7 ± 0.7 1.8 ± 1.3 2 0.1 0.8 0.01 0.9
 Hand placement 2.1 ± 1.1 2.1 ± 0.4 2.6 ± 0.9 2.25 ± 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.6
 3-step-diagnosis cervical&thoracic spine 1.9 ± 0.9 2.1 ± 0.7 2.4 ± 1.1 2 0.3 0.6 0.03 0.9
 Traction-manipulation of the cervical spine 2.3 ± 0.5 2.1 ± 0.7 2.2 ± 0.4 2.3 ± 0.5 <0.001 0.9 0.04 0.8
 Rotation-traction technique, cervical spine 2 ± 0.6 2 ± 0.6 2.4 ± 1.1 2 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5
 Cross-hand technique, thoracic spine 2 ± 0.8 1.9 ± 0.7 2.2 ± 0.8 2 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6
Cervical spine and thoracic spine (5-point Likert scale)
 The instructor was knowledgeable about the subject 1.1 ± 0.4 1.7 ± 0.5 1.2 ± 0.4 1.3 ± 0.5 1.1 0.3 2.6 0.1
 The instructor-learner interaction was positive 1.4 ± 0.5 1.6 ± 0.8 1.6 ± 0.5 1.5 ± 0.6 0.03 0.9 0.01 0.9
 The instructor answered my questions to my satisfaction 2 ± 1 2.1 ± 0.7 2.8 ± 0.8 1.5 ± 0.6 0.1 0.8 2.7 0.1
 I enjoyed the course 1.6 ± 0.8 1.6 ± 0.5 1.6 ± 0.5 1.5 ± 0.6 0.01 0.9 0.03 0.9
 In this course I learned a great deal 1.9 ± 0.9 1.9 ± 1.1 3.2 ± 0.8 2.25 ± 0.5 5.1 0.04* 1.5 0.2
 I feel confident to apply the practiced techniques to real patients 3.3 ± 1.3 3.4 ± 1.5 4.2 ± 0.8 3.8 ± 1.5 1.2 0.3 0.07 0.8
 The course provided an appropriate balance between instruction and practice 2.1 ± 1 2.3 ± 0.8 2 ± 0.7 2.3 ± 0.5 0.06 0.8 0.3 0.6
 I would have rather been trained in the other group 4.3 ± 0.8 5 2.8 ± 1.3 4.5 ± 1 7.7 0.01* 11.4 0.003*
 It would require more training to become proficient 1.6 ± 0.8 2.4 ± 1.6 1.4 ± 0.5 2.5 ± 1.7 0.01 0.9 3.3 0.08
 The size of the class was appropriate 2.7 ± 1.1 2.4 ± 0.9 2.8 ± 1.6 1.8 ± 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.9 0.2
Lumbar spine and sacroiliac joint (6-point grading scale)
 Indications/contraindications 2.6 ± 0.5 2.3 ± 0.5 2.2 ± 0.4 2.5 ± 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.001 0.9
 Mobilisation/manipulation 2 ± 0.8 2 ± 0.6 2.8 ± 0.8 3.3 ± 0.5 11.4 0.003* 0.5 0.5
 3-step-diagnosis 2 ± 0.8 2 ± 0.6 2 ± 1.2 2.5 ± 1.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5
 Hand placement 2 ± 0.6 2.1 ± 0.4 2.8 ± 0.8 2.8 ± 0.9 6.1 0.02* 0.02 0.8
 3-step-diagnosis lumbar spine 1.9 ± 0.7 2 ± 0.8 2.2 ± 1.1 2.3 ± 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.8
 Rotation manipulation, lumbar spine 2.1 ± 1.1 2 ± 0.6 2.2 ± 1.1 2.5 ± 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.04 0.8
 Counter-Rotation manipulation, lumbar spine 2.6 ± 0.8 2.6 ± 0.8 2.4 ± 0.9 2.8 ± 0.9 9.8 0.9 0.2 0.6
 3-step-diagnosis sacroiliac joint 2 ± 0.8 2.1 ± 0.7 3 ± 1.2 2.8 ± 0.5 4.9 0.04* 0.02 0.8
 Manipulation of the os ilium (sideways position) 2.6 ± 0.8 3 ± 1.2 2.8 ± 0.8 2.3 ± 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.02 0.9
 “Panther’s-jump” technique 1.4 ± 0.5 1.9 ± 0.4 2 ± 0.7 2.5 ± 0.6 6.8 0.02* 3.9 0.06
Lumbar spine and sacroiliac joint (5-point Likert scale)
 The instructor was knowledgeable about the subject 1.4 ± 0.5 1.6 ± 0.5 1.4 ± 0.5 1.5 ± 0.6 0.05 0.83 0.3 0.6
 The instructor-learner interaction was positive 1.3 ± 0.5 1.7 ± 0.8 1.8 ± 0.4 2 ± 0.8 2.2 0.16 1.3 0.3
 The instructor answered my questions to my satisfaction 1.6 ± 0.9 2 ± 1 3 ± 1.2 2 2.9 0.1 0.5 0.5
 I enjoyed the course 1.6 ± 0.8 1.4 ± 0.5 2 ± 1 1.8 ± 0.5 1.4 0.2 0.4 0.5
 In this course I learned a great deal 2 ± 0.8 2.1 ± 1.3 3.4 ± 1.1 3 ± 1.4 5 0.04* 0.1 0.8
 I feel confident to apply the practiced techniques to real patients 3.7 ± 0.8 3.4 ± 1.5 4.4 ± 0.5 3.5 ± 1.3 0.6 0.4 1.6 0.2
 The course provided an appropriate balance between instruction and practice 1.9 ± 0.9 2.1 ± 0.7 2.6 ± 0.5 2.8 ± 0.9 4 0.05 0.4 0.5
 I would have rather been trained in the other group 4.3 ± 0.9 5 2.8 ± 1.3 4 ± 1.4 8.8 0.008* 5.2 0.03*
 It would require more training to become proficient 1.4 ± 0.5 2.3 ± 1.7 1.4 ± 0.5 1.5 ± 0.6 0.8 0.4 1.1 0.3
 The size of the class was appropriate 2.1 ± 1.1 2.3 ± 0.9 3 ± 1 1.8 ± 0.5 0.2 0.7 1.9 0.2
  1. Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation, *indicating significance
  2. 6-point grading scale, 1 = very good, 6 = insufficient; 5-point Likert scale, 1 = fully agree, 5 = strongly disagree