96 to 0.98 (Table 3). We also computed ICCs in subsamples, using the median value of the sample Cobb angle to define severity.

Restriction of range in subsamples compared to the full sample systematically lowers the ICC value, but ICCs of the two subsamples can be compared to each other: reliabilities were similar in those with find more moderate and severe kyphosis. We also calculated the inter-rater reliability based on only the first measurement from the rater one and the 4th from rater two; learn more results did not differ (data not shown). Analyses excluding eight cases that were flagged for difficult kyphometer placement did not alter the intra- or inter-rater reliability estimates for that device (data not shown). Table 3 Intra- and inter-rater reliabilities of three non-radiological kyphosis assessments   Intra-rater reliability (N = 113) Inter-rater reliabilitya (N = 51–54) Full sample  Debrunner kyphosis angle 0.98 0.98  Flexicurve kyphosis index 0.96 0.96  Flexicurve kyphosis angle 0.96 0.96   Moderate Kyphosis b  Debrunner kyphosis angle 0.97 0.98  Flexicurve

kyphosis index 0.94 0.93  Flexicurve kyphosis angle 0.94 0.94   Severe Kyphosis  Debrunner kyphosis angle 0.97 0.98  Flexicurve kyphosis index 0.94 0.97  Flexicurve kyphosis angle 0.94 0.95 Values in table are intra-class this website correlation coefficients, defined as between-person variance divided by total variance aThe average of the first three measurements

made by the first rater was compared to one measurement performed by the second rater bModerate kyphosis is defined as a Cobb angle of less than 53°, the sample median. Severe kyphosis is defines as a Cobb angle of greater than or equal to 53° The modified Cobb angle was our criterion measurement; non-radiological measures were compared to Lonafarnib manufacturer it to gauge their validity (Table 4). In the full sample, the Pearson correlations between the non-radiological kyphosis measures and the Cobb angle ranged from 0.62 to 0.69 (95% confidence Interval [CI] for each estimate was ±0.184). Correlations between each non-radiological measure in the 87 persons with T4–T12 Cobb angles were approximately 0.72, somewhat higher than the correlations based on the entire sample. In the sample that was also restricted to those whose Debrunner measures were not flagged as difficult (N = 80), the Pearson correlations between the clinical kyphosis measures and the Cobb angle were even higher, and ranged from 0.762 to 0.758. In aggregate, there was a trend towards higher correlations as the samples were progressively restricted.